i0^^, 


Wg^ 


iw 




W^ 


^^ 


^J 


^^§ 



>A 



-ivjr-, 




'^r 



Book 
Gop>Ti 



-<?F 



'yk 



v,;iM5c:^- 


ightF 


COPYF^IGHT DEPOSnV 







^#^ 


^^^^S^ 


^^3^ 


"^ (^^$^^^^^"^5 


^^& 


^^^^fei 


^^^ 


^^^^3^"^ 


5^^ 


^^W^ 


!lvO!j*~0 


\^\. ^^A ) (nV\\( 


^X^ 


JcM*^^^^^ 



s* 



xiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiB^^^^^^^^ 



THE FUNDAMENTALS 

OF PROTESTANTISM 



i 



Including a Comparative Study of the 
Creed of Romanism 



Adapted to Bible Class Work 




m UNITED PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 

1 Pittsburgh, Pa. I 

xuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiy^ 






To the 

Baraca Men's Bible Class of Pittsburgh, N, S., Pa., 

In the Recollection of Delightful Hours of Fellowship, together with 

All Similar Groups Organized for the Study of Christian Doctrine and 

the Promotion of Christian Service, this Little Book Is 

Affectionately Dedicated. 



A 



Copyright, 1915, hy the United Presbyterian Board of Publication. 

APR 13 191St0)ci,A398348 



i^C^ CONTEXTS 



Foreword 5 

LESSOX I. Origin and Meaning of the word 'VProtestantism. " The 

500th Anniversary of the Martyrdom of John Huss; the Downfall 

^^ of Constantinople; The Invention of Printing; The Discovery of 

^s^ America; The Keformation: Our Debt to Wycliffe 7 

LESSON II. The Council of Trent and the Creed of Romanism— The 
Importance of this Study; The Effect of Reformation on Roman- 
ism; The Time. Place, and the Purpose of the Council of Trent; 

Its Composition,' The Creed of Pope Pius IV 14 

^>- LESSON III. The Rule of Faith— Protestant and Roman Views; The 

^^ Contents of the Protestant Bible; The Contents of the Catholic 

yl Bible; The Testimony of Josei)hus, Jerome, and Jesus concerning 

^*^ the Apocrypha .,,..' 20 

"v;;^ LESSON IV. The Rule of Faith (continued )— Protestant and Catholic 

^1 Versions of the Holy Scriptures: — ^Wycliffe's Written Translation; 

Tyndale, the father of the first printed Bible; His Exile and Mar- 
tyrdom; His Dying Prayer; Origin of the Douai Version; Its 

Roman Bias — Sacerdotalism and Ceremonialism 27 

LESSON V. The Rule of Faith (continued )— The Sufficiency of the 
Holy Scriptures; Rome's Claim for Tradition as of Equal Author- 
ity with Scripfeire; Paul's Teachings Concerning Tradition; 
Peter's Testimony; The Teachings of Jesus; Scripture All- 

Sufficient; Scripture and Tradition Superseded 33 

LESSON VI. The Rule of Faith (continued)— The Interpretation of 
Scripture; The Right of Private Interpretation Denied by Rome; 
The Right of Private Interpretation Defended; The Right of 
Private Intej'pretation Demanded by the Responsibilities laid upon 

Human Beings; The Holy Spirit Our Infallible Interpreter 39 

LESSON VII. The Rule of Faith (continued) — The Circulation and 
Reading of the Holy Scriptures; Rome 's Attitude, varied to suit 
Surrounding Conditions; The Decrees of Popes and Councils; The 
Condition of the Parts of America once dominated by Spain; 
Brazil; The Philippines; The Number of Translations Made by 
Protestant and Catholics Compared; Testimony of Dr. Fradryssa; . . . .46 
LESSON VIII. The Sacraments — Protestant View as to their Number 
and Nature: Rome's View as to their Number and Nature; Their 
Place in the Romish Creed; Penance, Confirmation, Orders, Matri- 
mony and Extreme T'nction not Instituted as Sacraments by 
Christ; The Essential Nature and Purpose of the True Sacraments. . . .52 
LESSON IX. The Sacraments (continued) — Penance Defined, Romish 
Absolution Judicial; The Apostles v.ever Judicially Forgave Sin; 
Binding and Loosing; Auricular Confession — Its Unwarrantableness 
and Baneful Influence; Repentance and Remission God's Free and 

Gracious Gift 57 

LESSON X. The Sacraments (continued) — Rome's Claim that the Seven 
Sacraments Correspond to Seven Wants of Human Nature; Re- 
formers and the Sacraments; Added Ceremonies in Baptism; Im- 
portance of Right Views and Proper Observance 67 

LESSON XI. The Sacrament's (continued) — The Lord's Supper; Sacra- 
ment or Sacrifice? Protestant Views of the Nature of the Lord's 
Supper; Importance of its Rightful Observance; ''The Real 

Presence ' ' ; 71 

LESSON XII. Justification by Faith— " The Article of a Standing or 
a Falling Church"; Luther's Great Discovery; Decrees of the 
Council of Trent; Works of Supererogation;^ '' Celestial Treas- 
ures "; Protestant Views 77 



LEfSSON XIII. Relation of Justification to Regeneration^ Adoption, 
and Sanctification; "By Faith, only, not by Faith Alone"; Teach- 
ings of the Fathers; Rome's Objections to the Protestant View; 
The Faith that Saves 86 

LESSON XIV. A Mutilated Sacrament — Communion in one Kind; Rome 
Inconsistent with. Herself; Half -Communion declared Heretical 
by Popes; Rome's Defense; The Inconsistency of those Avho deny 
themselves both Bread and Cup 93 

LESSON XIV. (b) Transubstantiation not Proved by the Bible; Rome's 

Decrees; The Worship of the Host; Arguments from Scripture. .... .100 

LESSON XV. Transubstantiation opposed to Scripture and the Senses; 
Uncertainty of Consecration; The Poisoned Host; Miracles and 
the Senses 107 

LESSON XVI. The Mass— ''It is the Mass that Matters"— No Sacri- 
ficing Priest in the Christian Church; A Ministration of Death; 
*' Crucifying the Son of God Afresh " •ll'l 

LESSON XVIL Purgatory— Three Links in a Chain ; Venial and Mortal 
Sin; Attempted Support from Scripture; ''Today shalt Thou Be 
with Me " 125 

LESSON XVIII. Invocation of Saints— Rome 's Doctrine Defined; The 
Queen of Saints; The Fathers on Universal Guilt-; Mariolatry of 
Pagan, not of Christian Origin 13o 

LESSON XIX. Arguments Against Saint Worship— Who are Saints? 
Rome's System of Canonization; Saints Cannot Hear Prayer; 
Saint Worship Forbidden; The Only Mediator 140 

LESSON XX. The Worship of Images — The Brazen Serpent and the 
Cherubim; Testimonies of Fathers and Councils; The Mutilated 
Decalogue; Image Worship, the Curse of the Ten Lost Tribes; 
' ' Have Me as Y^our God " 145 

LESSON XXI. Indulgences — Rome's Doctrine and Practice; The Im- 
mediate Cause of the Reformation; "All Abuse"; The Doctrine 
of "Temporal Punishment'' contrary to Scripture; Saints have 
no Superabundant Merits; The Pope not the Dispenser of the 
Celestial Treasury 150 

LESSON XXIL Rome's Claim to be the Mother and Mistress of all 
Churches — "Beginning at Jerusalem;" Antioch. the next Center; 
Rome not Planted by an Apostle; Christianity not Planted in the 
British Isles by Romish Priests; Rome's False Claim to Unity 150 

LESSON XXIII. Peter's Primacy— " This Rock;" "Unanimous Con- 
sent" of Fathers Wanting; "The Key of Knowledge;" Peter's 
Primacy not Recognized by the other Apostles, nor by the First 
Council, nor by the Early Church 161 

LESSON XXIV. Bishops of Rome not Peter 's Successors— Proof Want- 
ing that Peter was ever Bishop in Rome; Her Tradition tliat he 
Filled this Office for Twenty-five Years Disproves her Claim; Spur- 
ious Writings — "The Second Epistle of Clementine;" "The Do- 
nation of Constantine, " "The False Decretals;'' Acknowledged 
to be Spurious, but the Stolen Goods still Retained 166 

LESSON XXV. The Decrees of Councils— The Creed of Pope Pius IV. 
a Violation of the Decrees of the First and Third Councils; Rome's 
Acknowledged Councils; A Protestant View of the Same; Twenty 
Roman Heresies; Councils Intolerant; Councils Inconsistent; 
Rome Claims all the Baptized 171 

LESSON XXA^I. The Romish Creed not True, not Catholic, and not 
Necessary to Salvation — "Another Gospel, not a Gospel;" Christ 
Robbed of His Three-fold Offices; Papal Infallibility; "Let 
there be Light; ^' ' ' Can We Sing the Song? " 184 



FOKKWORD 



There is no more insidious and delusive sophism than thi's: '*It matters 
not what a man believes, provided he is only sincere." The time-pieces of 
the nation are compared hourly with the great time-marker in the Observatory 
in Washington, and this time-piece is regulated daily by God's unerriiig clock 
in the sky. A returning tourist was sincere in his belief that the Etruria, 
on which he had taken passage, was to sail from the Alexandra Dock, Liver- 
l>('ol. The sincerity of his belief almost caused him to miss the steamer 
which was to take her departure from the Princess' Landing, several miles 
awaj'. A mother rose in 'the night to give medicine to her sick child. The 
sincerity of her belief that the bottle on which she first laid hands contained 
the remedy which the physician ha<i prescribed did not prevent the poison 
which she administered by mistake fiom doing its speedy work of death. 
We have but one journey to make through life; we cannot afford to be mis- 
taken as to the way. Our souls are sick unto death, and there are many 
remedies offered for the malady. We cannot afford to be mistaken as to 
which of them we will employ. Even though we be sincere, a wrong choice 
will mean death to the soul. 

There are two great systems of belief, each claiming to be the one pro- 
vided for the deliverance of the soul from sin's deadly poison. There are 
elements in common in the two systems large enough and powerful enough 
to lead many to say, They will both yield the same results. Yet there are 
divergencies enough to produce totally different effects, and the difference 
may be as wide as the chasm between life and death. We cannot afford to 
say. It matters not which I accept and apply. Sincerity alone will not save, 
if in our sincerity our choice be wrong. An unerring voice bids us not 
believe every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. 

Is there not a middle course which we may safely follow — since there 
are such diversities between the systems of which you speak? "Since it 
is a question which is right, I elect to stand on neutral ground.'' There are 
questions on w'hich we may occupy the attitude of neutrality, since they havv-^ 
no vital relation to our own health and life. But when the malady is already 
doing its deadly Avork, to reject all remedies because of conflicting claims 
is to court destruction v.hen relief is right at hand. A better course is to 
listen to the voice of Wisdom that says, "Unto you, O men, I call, and 
My voice is to the sons of men." ''Blessed is the man that heareth Me 
watching daily at My gates, waiting at the posts of My doors. For whoso 
findeth Mo findeth Life." 

The approach of the five hundredth anniversary of the martyrdom of John 
IIuss, the ''morning star of the Kef ormation ", makes the present a fitting 
time to undertake such a series of studies. The hand of God is clearly seen in 
the course of events since July 6th, 1415, when that brave servant of God 
yielded up his life at the stake for the sake of the priestly privileges which 



6 THE PIT E POSE OF THE BOOK 

Jesus Christ had conferred upon all who believe in Him. Following the out- 
break of the Eeformation, the Council of Trent met in 1545-63 to counteract 
the influence of the Eeformers. Its deliberations and decisions w^ere crystal- 
lized in the Creed of the Pope Pius IV., promulgated in 1564. This has been 
ever since, and still is, Eome 's accepted formula of faith. In this series of 
lessons this Creed furnishes the order of study and the method of procedure. 
After certain historical and preliminary lessons, the aim is to take up the 
various statements of Eomish belief, article by article, and under each to 
present, first, Eome 's teaching of the subject in hand as stated in her formu- 
lated creed and in the utterances of her recognized authorities; second, to 
present the biblical teaching on the same subject as understood and promul- 
gated by the Evangelical Churches; third, to press home upon heart and con- 
science vital truths which stand closely related to the errors thus exposed. 

The compiler of these lessons deeph^ realizes that mere aversion to error 
has in it no saving efficacy. Our faith must be a vital, positive faith. Mere 
assent to truth, however correct and true its statements may be, does not 
constitute one a Christian. ''This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, 
the living and true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent. ' ' In preparing 
the following lessons, the aim has been to set forth the truth as it 
is in Jesus Christ, that those who follow them may be led into a closer, fuller 
and a saving acquaintance wdth Him. That these humble studies may be so 
blessed by the Spirit of life is our earnest desire and prayer. 

The prize set before us is worthy of the most earnest effort — life eternal. 
Count all the drops in the great oceans, add the number of grains of sand in 
all the earth, add the number of the leaves on all the trees of the forests, 
and to this all the atoms that float in the air and all the stars in the firma 
ment of heaven, and when the years represented by their sum shall have 
rolled away, eternity wdll still be in its earliest morning. 

The compiler of the pages that follow wishes to acknoAvledge the -help 
received from many sources, acknowledgment of which is made as the ex- 
amination proceeds. He gladly acknowledges special obligation to the Eev. 
J. M. Kyle, D. D., of Lowell, Mass., who for a quarter century was a devoted 
missionary in Brazil, and is now ministering to the Portuguese in New^ England. 



LESSON 




TIIK OUMCIX AM) MKAMM; OK TIIK WOUI) 
'^PROTESTANTISM" 

During the year 3915, there ^\ill ]>(> celeltratcd in league, Bohemia, the oOOth 

anniversary of the martyrdom of John Huss, who is often called "the Morning 

Star of the Reformation." His martyrdom took place July CAh, 1415. Before 

his day John WycliflFe had 
given to the people of Eng- 
land the Holy Scriptures in 
their own tongue. With the 
help of others he translated 
the whole Bible into English 
and had written copies made 
of his translation. Compara- 
tively few people could read 
in those days, but Avhere one 
was found who could read, he 
would gather together those 
who cared to listen to the sa- 
cred oracles and would read 
to them. Men began to think 
for themselves more deeply 
than they had done in former 
years. Among those who 
caught glimpses of the dawn- 
Jolin Huss with Cup and Book ing light was John Huss of 

TM-ague, Avho gave himself to the study and the teaching of the Word of God. 
John Huss was born in Husinicz, in 1369. A picture of his birthplace is 

presented herewith. Of his early life nothing is known. He first came into 

piominence in the University _ 

of Prague, where he received 

the degree of B. A. in 1396 

and of M. A. in 1399. He 

tlien began teaching in the 

university, with such success 

that he' was made its rector in 

1402. In that same year he 

became preacher in the Beth- 
lehem Chapel of P r a g u e, 

where with great power he 

testified against the abuses of 

the Papacy. When the Pope 's 

Bull forbade Wvcliffe's writ- 

. . J J J XI, X v The birthplace of John Huss 

ings and ordered them to be 

burned, Huss defended them. At last he was compelled to leave Prague, and 

then he went about preaching to the people. 

Two great principles for which he contended were the tise of both elements 





The Spot Where Huss Was Burned 



8 THE CVP AND THE BOOJv 

ill the HacraiiKMit of the Eord 's Supper and the free circulation of the Holy 
ycri^turcs. Both of these were against Rome's usages, which withhold the 
cup from the laity and the Book from both priests and people. (Cardinal Gib- 
bons admits that communion was administered in the early centuries under 
both forms. Also that Pope Gelasius, in the fifth century, made the use of 
both obligatory. The Council of Constance, in 1414, enacted a decree prohibit- 
ing the use of the cup by the 
laity.) I t was for these rea- 
sons that the followers of 
Huss adopted as the emblems 
of their faith the Cup and the 
Book. These symbols became 
very dear to the Hussites, and 
they yet appear prominently 
in every Hussite church. 

In contending for the free 
use of the Cup and the Book 
among the people, the Reform- 
er was chiefly concerned to 
lead the people into the full 
enjoyment of that W'hich these 
emblems represented. The withholding of the cup from the laity was a virtual 
denial to them of the priestlj^ privileges which have been purchased for all 
believers through the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5; Rev. 1:5, 6). The 
germ idea of the Reformation was the aAvakening of mankind to the individual 
consciousness of their personal relationship to God. During the "dark ages" 
Romish formalism and superstition intervened betw^een the souls of men and 
the living Saviour, thus shutting them out from the Light of the world and 
producing what we truly call "the dark ages." It was the rediscovery of 
this Light and the leading of 
those who accepted his teach- 
ings into personal relationship 
with Jesus Christ that made 
John Huss the reformer be- 
fore Reformation. 

In 1413 Huss was sum- 
moned before the Council of 
ConstauLce. He obeyed the 
summons after the emperor 
had assured him of a safe-con- 
duct. But in spite of this 
guarantee he was arrested at 
Constance, and was imprison- 
ed. He was brought before A Bohemian Reformed Church 
the Council for trial June 5th, 1415, in the Dominican Cloister, now the Insel 
Hotel of that city. His fidelity to truth, even at the risk of his life, was very 
beautiful. He wrote June 10th, 




I write this letter from prison, expecting 



A DEBT TO WYCLIFFI-: 

tomorrow the death sentence, yet fully trusting in God that 1 shall not swerve 
from His truth." (August 2, ]i»U, Just on the eve of the outbreak of the pres- 
ent European war, a peace conference met in the Hotel Insel, in Constance, 
in which Huss was imprisoned.) 

On July 6th, in the Cathedral at Constance, he was condemned to death, 
the spot where he then stood being now marked by a white spot in a large 
stone slab. That same day his body was burned to ashes. He went to the 
stake singing praises, and predicting the coming of a great Keformation. A 
great stone now marks the spot on which he was burned. 
Protestantism's Debt to Wycllffe 

"On Sylvester's Day, 13.S4, " says Dr. Kowland E. Prothero, in The 
Psalms in Human Life, "John Wycliffe lay dying at Lutterworth. The 
Friars, so runs the story, crowded around him, urging him to confess the wrongs 
that he had done to their Order. But the indomitable old man caused his 
servant to raise him from his pillow, and, gathering all his remaining strength, 
fxclaimed with a loud voice, 'I shall not die, but live; and declare — the evil 
deeds of the Friars' (Ps. 98:17). 

"Before Wycliffe 's day, devout men had assailed the corruption of the 
Church, or disputed her doctrines of the 8acrament. Some had protested against 
the claims of the Papacy, or upheld the rights of the national churches. Others 
had demanded the preaching of the true Gospel. Others had deplored the 
w(»rldliness of the clergy, denouncing the wealth of the Monastic Orders, or 
preached the blessings of poverty. But all had remained loyal to the Pope; 
none had looked beyond existing agencies for the reform of the Church and of 
society. Wycliffe 's attitude marks an advance so distinct as to proclaim a new 
epoch. He not only attacked practical abuses, but aimed at erecting an eccle- 
siastical fabric which should differ from tbe old in doctrine as well as in organ- 
ization. In the last years of his life he urged complete separation from the 
Papacy as Antichrist, established his 'Poor Priests,' aspired to reform England 
])y the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, and, in religion, politics, 
and society, insisted on the freedom of the human conscience from every re- 
straint except Christ 's written law. His importance as the centre of all pre- 
Reformation history was instinctively recognized. When the Bishop of London 
ordered his body to be exhumed and burned, and its ashes thrown into the 
river Swift — or when W^alsingham, the Chronicler, calls him, 'that weapon of 
the devil, that enemy of the Church, that sower of confusion among unlearned 
people, that idol of heresy, that mirror of hj'pocrisy, that father of schism, 
that son of hatred, that father of lies' — the one by his action, the other by 
his language, expresses his sense of the fact that Wycliffe was not a reformer 
of the mediaeval monastic type, but had introduced a new era. 

" Wycliffe 's attitude was, in part, produced by changed circumstances. 
Traditions of universal empire were obscured by the rise of separate nations, 
one in race, language, and religion; the temporal claims of the Pope had in- 
creased as his spiritual hold on the world relaxed, and both became intolerable, 
when claimants of the papal throne excommunicated their opponents or doomed 
their rivals to eternal damnation. In part, it expressed profound discontent 
with the corruptions of religious life, intensified by the horrors of the plague. 
Even the most vicious were terrified into paying that vicarious homage to 



10 ' HUSS AKD JEKOME 

^'irtue which demands from the clergy an elevated moral standard. In part, 
it resulted from political or social conditions. The English nation was at war 
with France; the Pope was the puppet of the French king, and papal tributes 
fed the French treasury with English money. The nobles desired to oust the 
clergy from public affairs, the commons to lighten their own burdens by 
taxing ecclesiastical property, the people to relieve their poverty T3y appro- 
priating the wealth of the Church, But the peculiar position which .Wycliffe 
adopted was even more the effect of his own temperament. To his austere 
piety, logical intellect, unimaginative nature, the faith of the Middle Ages 
made but weak appeal. Blind to its beauties, he saw with exaggerated 
clearness only its defoimities. He chafed against the fetters it imposed on 
his mental independence, and failed to appreciate its spiritual insight, mystical 
ardour, religious rapture, intense realization of the mysteries of the unseen. 
When once a man of this temperament was startled into opposition by in- 
tellectual difficulties or moral shortcomings, he could not stop short at reform, 
but was irresistibly impelled toward revolution. He was the precursor, not of 
the Anglican reformed', but of the Puritan iconoclast. 

"Without Wycliffe there would have been no Huss, and no Jerome of 
Prague. Both men were accused of sympathy with the English Eeformer. At 
Prague a portion of Wycliffe 's tomb was worshiped as a relic: numerous 
manuscripts of his writings exist in foreign libraries, especially at Vienna; 
and Huss's work on the Church (De Ecclesia) is derived, sometimes verbally, 
from the English reformer. Like Wycliffe, both Huss and Jerome died re- 
peating the words of a psalm. 

'^On July 6, 1415, the Council of Constance held its fifteenth general 
session in the cathedral. Sigismund, King of the Eomans, presided; before 
his throne, nobles and princes of the empire bore the insignia of the imperial 
dignity; the cardinals and prelates were assembled in their nations. After 
mass had been said, John Huss, a pale, thin man, in mean attire, was brought 
into the presence of his judges, and placed on a small raised platform. In 
vain he protested that he had come to Constance under a safe conduct from 
Sigismund himself. He was condemned as a heretic, and handed over to the 
secular arm for execution. The sentence was carried out without delay. On 
the road from Constance to Gottlieben the stake was prepared. When Huss 
reached the spot, wearing a paper cap of blasphemy, adorned with 'three 
devils of wonderfully ugly shape' and inscribed with the word 'Heresiarcha', 
he fell on his knees and prayed, chanting Psalm 31. He died, choked by 
the flames, but repeating with 'a merry and cheerful countenance' the 
words: 'Into Thy hands I commend my spirit' (Ps. 31:6). 

"On the same spot, on May 30, 1110, died Jerome of Prague. Tall, 
powerfully built, graceful of speech, one of the most brilliant laymen of the 
day, he had come to the Council to plead the cause of Huss. Panic-stricken 
at his friend 's fate, he fled, only to be captured and brought back to Con- 
stance. His courage revived w^hen escape was hopeless. An imprisonment of 
six monthB did not induce him to acknowledge the justice of the sentence 
passed upon Huss. Like his friend, he perished at the stake, dwelling with his 
latest breath on the same words: 'Into Thy hands I commend my spirit,' 



THE FALL OF C'ONS'rAN'PlNOFLF 11 

"Tho Council (ti' CoiistatH'O healed llic pajtal sdiisni. lint it a<'('«»inplislie<l 
little more. With its dissohitioii and lliat of the Council of Basle, faded the 
hope of any complete or uni\ersal reform of the Church from within. It was 
a time, not of transition only, l)iit also of sifting. Men like Luther, {Erasmus 
or Fisher, who were of one mind in condemning- abuses, passed into opposite 
camps, impelled by tlie differences in their own temperaments. Vast efforts 
were indeed made for the internal reform; but they w-ere too nanow, too 
local, too late. The pent-up stream of intellectual life and classic culture had 
burst its barriers, shattering the old channels of thinking, believing and 
acting^ which centuries of habit had grooved. Fed from innumerable sources, 
the Protestant Reformation had swelled into a headlong torrent. In the sea 
of human faith and thought both currents met the flowing tide of the Catholic 
reaction. It was a time of tierce shock and collision.'' 

The downfall of Constantinople in 1453 was another event that led to the 
awakening of Western Eurox)e out of the intellectual and spiritual torpor under 
which it had slumbered for ages. The coming of the Turks into Constantinople 
drove out hundreds of scholarly men who were compelled to seek refuge from 
the Moslems in western cities. They brought with them their Greek and Latin 
classics, and also manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. This led to a 
•evival of the study of languages, arts and sciences in Western Europe, a 
period known as the Renaissance. This quickening of mental activity led in 
turn to a closer study of the Scriptures, and light began to break forth from 
it in many places. 

Another event for which the 15th century was distinguished was the in- 
vention of printing through the efforts and ingenuity of Laurance Koster and 
Johann Gutenberg, between the years 1420-38. It is a significant fact that 
the first book ever printed was a Bible. This was a large Latin volume with 
double columns, the initial letters of every chapter being executed with the 
pen in colors. This book was printed about the year 14:54:. A very few^ copies 
of it are still in existence, but they are very rare and valuable. Thus with 
the rediscovery of the long neglected Word of God there was discovered also 
the means of rapidly multiplying copies of the Holy Writ and disseminating 
them in all parts of the world. 

Another great event of the 15th century was the discovery of the West- 
ern Continent. When Christopher Columbus landed on Cat Island, one of the 
Bahamas, October 11, 1492, he rendered a service to mankind far greater than 
he realized. He was God's instrument in 'opening to the oppressed of the Old 
World an asylum to which they could flee for refuge when persecuted for con- 
science 's sake. With the re-awakening of the conscience God was thus provid- 
ing for future generations a place of abode where every man would be free to 
follow^ his own convictions. The newly discovered hemisphere was also to be- 
come a new base of operation, from which the gospel would be sent into all 
parts of the w^orld. 

Still another remarkable event of the 15th century was man's discovery of 
the true order of the created universe. The old system of astronomy, called the 
Catholics did not like the name which the Reformers preferred — Evangelicals 
or Gospellers — those in accord with the Gospel. 



12 LUTHER AND HIS 95 THEBE^^ 

Ptolemaic system, after Ptolemy of Egypt, considered the eartli as tlie center 
of tilings, around wliieli suns, moons ami stais rcNolved. On the 19th of Feb- 
ruary, 1473, Nicolas Copernicus was born at Thorn, in Prussia, one who was to 
be instrumental in discovering the great fact that the sun is the center 
around which the earth and the other planets revolve. The results of this dis- 
covery were many and far reaching. It has been truly said that during 
that remarkable century God gave to men the knowledge of a new heaven atid 
a new earth. 

It was during that same century that Martin Luther, the great leader of 
the G-erman Reformation, was raised up. He was born at Eisleben, November 
10th, 1483, nine years before the discovery of America by Columbus. See how 
the different parts of God 's providence were working together. At the same 
time that He M^as speaking to the ear of a young man in Germany, bringing 
to his knowledge long-forgotten truths, He was opening up a new hemisphere 
on which the adherents of the new-found faith might find a place for their 
fullest and freest development, from which in the course of the ages they 
might be instrumental in disseminating this truth into all parts of the world. 

Two other dates should be remembered by those who are deeply inferested 
in the study of the Fundamentals of Protestantism. The first of these was 
the time when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Witten- 
berg. This was done October 31, 1517. This marked a new era, both in his 
personal experience and in the dissemination of the truths which he believed. 

The terms Protestant and Protestantism had their origin twelve years 
later. In 1520 Luther was excommunicated, and in 1521, at a Diet of German 
princes held at Worms, he and his followers were placed under the ban of the 
empire. At a Diet held at Spires in 1526 it was agreed unanimously that 
indemnity should be granted for past offences against the edict of Worms, and 
that until the meeting of a General Council, to be held in a German city, each 
State should act in religious matters as it hoped to answer for its conduct 
to God and to the Emperor. The Roman Catholic party became dissatisfied 
with this, and at a second Diet of Spires held in 1529, by a majority an edict 
was passed which forbade any more departures from the Roman Catholic 
Church, and enjoined that the property and authority of that Church should 
everywhere be maintained. Against this, six princes and the representatives of 
sixteen free cities protested. They maintained that it was incompetent for a 
Di^t to repeal by a majority what a former Diet had unanimously decreed, 
and they said that this concerned a matter in whjch they ought to obey God 
rather than the Emperor. ''We protest," they said, "before God our only 
Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who one day will be our Judge, 
as well as before all men and creatures, that we, for us and our people, neither 
consent nor adhere in an^ manner whatsoever to the proposed decree in any- 
thing that is contrary to God, to His Holy Word, to our right conscience, to 
the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires." Those who ad- 
hered to this protest were called Protestants. 

The nume came afterwards to be used for all who adopted the opinions 
(if the Reformers. Its use, it is said, was convenient for both parties. The 
followers of Luther did not then care to be called Lutherans; and the Roman 



THE MEAXIN(; OF PROTESTANTISM IM 

('(tnsidoringf tho accidcntiil orioin of the word, it wouUl bo unfair to urge 
tli'jt it is a precise description of the Cliurches that are so called. If we were 
to treat it as such, we should have to say that it designates those belonging to 
Western Christendom who protest or declare that they are free from the er- 
rors found in. the Roman Catholic Church and are the representatives of the 
Church as it was before it was corrupted. 

Who can even hastily review these closely related events and not see in 
them the hand of God? Men and nations acted on their own impulses, seeking 
to realize their own ambitions, yet all things were overruled to the glory of 
His name and the advancement of His Kingdom. The fall of Constantinople 
resulted in an intellectual awakening in Western Europe, which was followed 
by a re-discovery of the Word of God and of its vital power. Together with 
these fresh discoveries of truth came the means also of more rapidly dis- 
seminating them. With the awakening of men's consciences through the pub- 
lication of the living Word of God, He also brought to them the knowledge of 
a new world to which they could flee in times of oppression and presecution. 
and in which they would find a new base of operations for the further pro- 
mulgation of the everlasting gospel. 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS COIN'SIDERATIOX 

What martyrdom will be celebrated July (i, 1915? 

For what principle did he specially contend? 

Where, when and how was he put to death? 

What conquest took place in 1453? 

What effect had this on Western Europe? 

What new discovery concerning the starry heavens took place in t]\e same 
century? 

W^hat new earth w^as discovered in 1492? 

What means of disseminating knowledge was discovered near the same 
time? 

What great reformer was born in 1483? 

How w^ere all these events working together? 

How is the hand of God seen in all of these occurrences? 

What did Luther nail to a church door in 1517? 

\Vhere was the name ''protestant " first distinctly applied? 

For what principles did it stand from that time? 



U IMI'ORTANCE OF THE STUDY 

LESSON II 
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND THE CREED OF ROMANISM 



Importance of a Study of the Difference Between Romanism and Protestantism 

Seeing tkat the Christians of Western Europe and the countries influenced 
by them through emigration and conquest have, since the sixteenth century, 
been divided into the two sections — Eoman Catholic and Protestant — it is 
reasonable to believe that there are between these some very serious differ- 
ences of opinion. What these are is w^orthy of careful study for at least three 
reasons: 

(1) Some knowledge of this is necessary for the right understanding of 
many events. Mr. Froude has well said, "The Keformation is the hinge on 
which, all modern history turns. Had there been no Eeformation, or had its 
shape been different, everything which happened since would have been differ- 
ent." The Eeformation made important alterations in: the social and political 
condition of Europe; it caused new alliances among nations; it effected changes 
in dynasties of kings; it was the occasion of wars and persecutions; and, in 
the opinion of many, it has affected the characteristics of races. While mod- 
ifications of opinion have changed both systems, in their essence they remain 
the same, and a knowledge of w^hat they are is necessary to make us under- 
stand how things have come to be what they are in Western Christendom. 
Even contemporary history is made plain only by some knowledge of this sub- 
ject. . The diff'erence between the two aff'ects the laws and customs of nations. 
In some countries the two parties present antagonistic claims, and no politician 
can leave the fact of the difference between them out of account. Thus no in- 
telligent person who wishes to know^ about the affairs of his own country and 
of other countries in Europe, either in the past or in the present, can afford to 
be ignorant of this subject. 

(2) It seems right in a matter of this kind to be able to give to ourselves 
and others a reason for the faith that is in us. Even a casual visit to a Eo- 
man Catholic church makes a member of a Protestant church realize that he has 
been brought up to offer w^orship after a different fashion, and even a super- 
ficial know^ledge of the claims of the Eoman Catholic Church makes him under- 
stand that his beliefs on many subjects are different. The explanation now 
often given, that the one system is for one race or one temperament, and the 
other for those belonging to another race or for those differently constituted 
mentally or emotionally, is quite inadequate. It was not so believed in the old 
days when people endured imprisonment, banishment, "and death, rather than 
change from one system to the other. No Eoman Catholic who has been in- 
structed in the principles of his faith would for a moment accept this solution 
of the difference between the two systems. Just as little can an intelligent 
Protestant believe that the teaching of the New^ Testament and the history 
of the Christian Church indicate that it makes no difference which side is taken^ 



EFFECT OF THE REFORMATION ON ROMANISM 15 

or that both systems can be equally true and equally helpful. Roman Cath^ 
lies have veiy frequently stated the arguments in favor of their Church witn 
great ability and much tact, and those brought up in Protestant Churches 
ought therefore to know what is to be said for Protestantism. Hawthorne in 
his novel, "Transformation," represents an American girl in Rome in great 
mental distress thinking of seeking refuge in the Roman Catholic Church, but 
recovering from the impulse by the remembrance that she was "a daughter of 
the Puritans." Hereditary associations are real things and are never to be 
despised, but thej' are not enough to protect people against attacks on their 
faith, and they cannot be relied on unless supported by right knowledge. 

(3) The study of this subject will open up fields of knowledge of a val- 
uable kind. It need not be a consideration of barren controversy. Just as in- 
vestigation into the condition of one part of the human frame leads to the 
knowledge of other parts,' so does the pursuit of any portion of truth lead to 
the better understanding of much besides. In the matter before us this is very 
manifest. This study should give a better knowledge of Scripture, a clearer 
understanding of history, and a greater acquaintance with the lives and teach- 
ing of good men who lived in different ages and in different countries. It 
should lead to thoughts not merely of the externals of religion but of its very 
essence, and, if pursued in the right spirit, it should increase our faith in what 
was taught by our Lord, it should give us hope for the final victory of truth, 
it should enlarge our love to those separated from us by making us realize how 
differently they have been instructed in religious matters, and it should deep- 
en a sense of our responsibility as heirs of the heritage of the Reformation. 
(Romanism and Protestantism, by Robert W. Weir, D. D.) 

The Reformation was not without its effect on Romanism. The exposure 
of the corruptions and abuses of Roman Catholic popes, cardinals, priests, etc., 
led to a general desire for a reformation in its morals and teachings. The 
popes of that day were themselves the chief offenders. Alexander VI. was pope 
at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, and 
he was one of the most profligate of men. Froude declares that ''rapes, mur- 
ders, debaucheries, cruelties, exceeding those of Nero and Caligula, were com- 
mitted without disguise in the Vatican itself under the eyes of the Pope" 
(quoting from Burkhard's diary); indulgences were sold in the church to pro- 
vide portions for the pope 's daughter Lucretia. Julius II., the successor of Al- 
exander, was another monster, Avho filled Europe with war and bloodshed. Leo 
X. was more heathen than Christian. He is credited with the remark that 
"Christianity was a profitable fable". Paul III. had a family of illegitimate 
children. He gave the duchies of Parma and Piacenza to his bastard son Lewis, 
and made two of his grandsons cardinals at the ages of fourteen and fifteen 
respectively; Paul IV. surpassed all his predecessors in his distribution of fa- 
vors among his children and grandchildren. Such was the character of some of 
the popes at the time of the Reformation. 

The example of the popes produced immorality everywhere. Iniquity 
abounded in nunneries and abbeys, until the laity cried out and demanded a ref- 
ormation. At last, under the demands of Charles V., Pope Paul III. yielded 
but with the evident purpose to thwart every effort for real reformation in 



IG THE COITNCIL OF TRENT 

doctrines and morals. A council of bishops and abbots was summoned to meet 
in Trent, a small town in Austrian Tyrol. The first session was held on Decem- 
ber 13, 1545, when only twenty-six bishops were present, with five generals of 
orders and envoys from the Emperor and King of the Romans. At the fourth 
session neAv arrivals brought the number up to thirty; but instead of consider- 
ing a reformation in morals, the bishops discussed the authority of Tradition 
and of the Scriptures, and in succeeding sessions Original Sin, Justification, the 
Eucharist, etc. The rumored outbreak of an epidemic afforded an excuse for 
the adjournment of the Council, which was accordingly suspended on April 28, 
1552. 

After a space of ten years the Council was again summoned by Pope Pius 
IV., and met on Easter Day, 1561. There were now present 106 bishops, four 
abbots, four generals of orders, the Duke of Mantua and the Emperor 's legate. 
Again the question of morals was evaded, except that the sale of indulgences 
was somewhat restricted. The time of the Council was, as in the previous ses- 
sions, chiefly occupied with the more definite enforcement of erroneous doc- 
trines, which were summed up and are now stereotyped in the creed called the 
Creed of Pope Pius IV. This Council had no real authority. It was neither 
"general nor free". At the later sessions there were present 189 Italians, 
most of w^hom had their maintenance from the pope, 31 Spaniards, 26 French, 
2 Germans, 3 Portuguese, 3 Illyrians, 3 Irish, 2 Flemish, 2 Polish, 1 Croatian, 
1 Moravian, 1 English. There were no representatives of the Greek Church. 

The six Greek bishops present were Roman titular bishops. The Roman 
Catholic Dictionary says, "The Italian prelates constituted more than half the 
Council." Such a packed body as that could by no means be called a "free 
Council". Yet it served mightily the purpose of the pope and cardinals in 
yielding to the demand for such a council — that they might renew and tighten 
their grip upon the sons and daughters of mankind whom they had brought un- 
der their benighting sway. They formulated a creed and laid their plans to ex- 
tend the influence of the Roman hierarchy in all lands, as they had never 
done before. How well they have succeeded since those days in arresting the 
progress of the Reformation and renewing their mighty influence over nations 
and peoples, is evident from the fact that in the year 1910 they put forth the 
claim that there were 264,000,000 Roman Catholics in the world. Other author- 
ities cut down the estimate to 190,000,000. Even when we make allowance for 
the fact that Rome counts all her baptized children in her enumeration, the fact 
remains that the Church of Rome is the largest of all so-called Christian organ- 
izations. Herzog's Encyclopedia, edition of 1905 (Leipzig) gives the following 
enumeration: Roman Catholics, 264,000,000; Protestants, 160,000,000; Orthodox 
Greeks, 139,000,000; Oriental Greeks, 8,000,000. The Roman Catholic Church is 
thus credited wdth having 264,000,000 of the 547,000,000 nominal Christians in 
the world. 



THE CREED OF ROMANISM 
The Creed of Pope Pius IV., formulated, 1564 
The Rule of Faith 
"I. I most stedfastly adlhit and embrace the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical 
Traditions and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church, 



THE CKEED OF POI^E PI IS IV. 17 

"II. "I also admit the Holy Scriptures according to that sense which our 
Holy Mother, the Church, has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge 
of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take 
and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers. 

The Sacraments 

"III. I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments 
of the new law instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and necessary for the sal- 
vation of mankind, though not all for everyone; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, 
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Thiction, Orders, and Matrimony; and that they 
confer grace; and that of these. Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, cannot be 
reiterated without sacrilege; and I also receive and admit the received and ap- 
I)roved ceremonies of the Catholic Church, used in the solemn administration 
t)f all the aforesaid Sacraments. 

Justification 

"IV. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have 
been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent, concerning original sin 
and justification, 

Transubstantiation and the Mass 

"V. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, 
proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the 
most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there are really, and substantially the 
body and blood, together with soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and 
that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the 
body, and of the w^hole substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion 
the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either 
kind alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament. 

Purgatory 

"VI. I constantl}^ hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls 
detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. 

Invocation of Saints 

"VII. Likewise, that the Saints, reigning together w-ith Christ, are to be 
honored and invocated; and they offer prayers to God for us, and that their 
relics are to be held in veneration. 

Images 

"VIII. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of 
God, ever Virgin, and also of other Saints, may be had and retained; and that 
due honor and veneration are to be given them. 

Indulgences 
"IX. I also affirm that the power of Indulgences Avas left by Christ in 
the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. 

The Church 
"X. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church for the 
Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and I promise true obedience to the 
Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter^ Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of 
Jesus Christ. 



18 SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLES 

The Councils 

"XL I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things deliver- 
ed, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils and 
particularly by the Holy Council of Trent; and I condemn, reject and anathem- 
atize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church condemned, 
rejected and anathematized. 

No Other Salvation 

"XIL I. N. N., do at this present freely profess, and sincerely hold 
this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved; and I promise 
most constantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, with 
God's assistance, to the end of my life." 

SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLES 
The Immaculate Conception 

(Declared by Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854.) 

"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter 
and Paul, and by our own authority, we declare, pronounce, and define that the 
doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant 
of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view 
of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved free 
from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to 
be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful. 

"Wherefore, if any shall presume — which may God avert — to think in 
their heart otherwise than has been defined by us let them know and moreover 
understand, that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have 
made shipw^reck as regards the faith, and have fallen away from the unity 
of the Church." 

Papal Infallibility 

(Enacted by the Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.) 

"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the 
Eoman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in the discharge of 
his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme 
apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held 
by the Universal Church, — is, by the Divine assistance promised to him in 
Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer 
willed that the Church should be endowed in defining faith or morals; and 
that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiffs are of themselves, and 
not from the consent of the Church, irref ormable. ' ' 



The foregoing articles set forth in concise form the substance of the 
doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. We have no desire to misrepresent 
any of its teachings in the least degree. We shall quote from their own author- 
ities when we have occasion to make statements concerning their faith and 
practice. There is perhaps no book more widely circulated among Roman 



AUTHORITIES Ql'OTEL) JO 

Catlu'lics ill Amoricji than "Tlic Faith of our Fathers," by Cardinal 
James Gibbons. Frequent quotations from this ])ook will be found in remaining 
chapters on the different articles that shall come under consideration. No one 
in America can speak more authoritatively than Cardinal Gibbons, and perhaps 
no one is more able to present the arguments in favor of Rome's positions more 
persuasivel}^ than he. Indeed the book seems to have been written primarily 
for the purpose of convincing Protestants that Romanism is the only true faith. 
We have observed in published reports of addresses given at the "missions" 
which Rome's advocates hold in many parts of the land every winter a very 
strong resemblance between these addresses and the treatment of the same 
subjects given in "The Faith of Our Fathers." It will be of advantage to 
consider its statements on many of the subjects that may fall under our con- 
sideration. 

We shall also quote frequently from a Question Book by "Father Con- 
way", used by the Paulist Fathers in conducting missions, and from other 
manuals of instruction by Roman Avriters. 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

Why is a knowledge of the differences betAveen Romanism and Protestant- 
ism necessary to understand other events? 

Why should we be able to give a reason for the faith that is in us? 

What other fields of information may such studies open up? 

What was the character of the popes during the. latter part of the 35th 
and the early part of the 16th centuries? 

How did the exposure of these things help to bring about the Reformation? 

W^hat did many of the people of Europe demand in view of these cor- 
ruptions? 

What Council was held as a result? 

Where and when w'as it held? 

How many w^ere at the opening sessions? 

How^ many toward the close, and how were they divided as to nationality? 

What formed a pretext for adjournment? 

What creed was the outgrowth of this council? 

By whom was it promulgated? 

Of w^hat do its twelve articles treat? 

When was the dogma of the Immaculate conception promulgated? 

By whom? What does it teach? 

By what Council was the infallibility of the Pope decreed? When? 



20 THE "[iVhK OF FAITH 



LESSON 111 



THE RULE OF FAITH— PROTESTANT AND ROMAN VIEWS 



. The Protestant View 

The word of God, which, is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 

The Roman View 

I. I most stedfastly admit and embrace the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical 
Traditions and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. 

II. I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense in which our 
Holy Mother, the Church, has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge 
of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take 
and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers. (Creed of Pope Pius IV., Articles I. II.) 

In considering the respective claims of differing systems of teaching, it is 
necessary 'to seek out, first of all, a common standing ground, and a common 
standard of measurement and judgment. There are many teachings which 
Eomanists and Protestants hold in common. Both Catholics and Protestants 
affirm ami believe that there is one living and true God, and that there are 
three persons in the Godhead — Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Catholics and 
Protesta,nts affirm, and believe that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God, 
that He was born, without sin, of the Virgin Mary; that He died for the 
redemption of man; that He rose frcm the dead and now sits at the Father's 
right hand, and that He aaIII come again to judge the world at the last day. 

Catholics and Protestants believe that by the inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit God gave to mankind a revelation of His holy will, in the book called 
the Holy Bible, that this Book has been remarkably preserved during the long 
ages since it began to be written, and that from this Book we may learn the 
will of God for our salvation and for the conduct of our lives. In this pre- 
liminary study, it is our purpose to examine carefully into the respective be- 
liefs of Protestants and Catholics concerning the Authority of the Holy 
Scriptures, and their Sufficiency as a revelation of the will of God concerning 
niankind. 

In general, the belief of the Protestant churches, in reference to the Bible 
is, that * ' the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only and 
infallible rule of faith and practice. ' ' Protestants believe and teach that 
both nature and reason are silent in relation to the salvation of sinful man, and 
that only the Holy Scriptures of truth are able to make wise unto salvation. 

The teaching of the Church of Eome concerning the Kule of Faith is ^et 
forth in Articles one and two of their accepted Creed, and is given above. It 
is also set forth in the Preface to the Douai Version of the Bible, pub- 
lished under the approbation of Cardinal Gibbons: 

*'At the earnest solicitation of large numbers of the religious bodies and 
laity, we herewith beg leave to introduce to the public a most convenient 



KOMIJ^H AN J) I'KOTESTANT \ IKWS 21 

(Mlitiou of the Hacrod 8oriptuies, ai)i)iovo(l by his EmiiKMico, the Caidinnl Arrli- 
l)ish«»p of Baltimore, whose lecoinnieiidation we herewith append: 

"Tlie ISaeied Scriptures form a part of divine revelation; the other part 
being contained in the depository of the (Miiircli. and di'signated as the un- 
written word of God. 

"This distinction is most happil}' found couched in the language of St. 
Paul; 'Wherefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you 
have loarned, whether by word, or our epistle' (2 Thess. 2:14.) The Apostle 
of the Gentiles thus gives precedence to the unwritten word of God presented 
to men by the Church, whilst she, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, as- 
sumes the office of sole interpreter of the Written Word, thereby rendering her 
sole guardian of the deposit of divine revelation in its two-fold form. 

"The work (the Bible,) is divided unequally into two parte, viz: the Old 
and New Testaments. The Old Testament is a record of God's relations with 
man antecedentlj' to the advent of the incarnate Son of God, our Lord Jesus 
Christ. The New Testament contains a compendium of the lives of our Saviour 
and His apostles, as recorded by the evangelists and other apostles. 

"As to the first part, or Old Testament, the version always recognized 
by the Church contains many more books than that used by other than Cath- 
olics. The reason for this discrepancy is that the Church 's version, the Sep- 
tungint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained 
all the writings now found in the Douai Version, was the version used by the 
Saviour and His apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated 
into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the 
true version of the Avritten Word of God," 



In a further comparison of the teachings of Home and Protestantism in 
reference to the Holy Scriptures, we shall consider: 

I. The Contents of th"? Bible, or the Number and names of the books 
which constitute the Holy Scriptures. 

II. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures — Do they constitute a sufficient 
Rule of Faith and Practice, or are they to be supplemented by traditions and 
the decrees of councils? 

III. Roman Catholic and Protestant Versions Compared. 

IV. The Interpretation and Use of the Holy Scriptures — Were they de- 
signed to be read by all, with the right of private judgment and interpreta- 
tion; or were they designed to be read only by the clergy, and is the Church 
to be the sole interpreter? 

V. Rome's attitude toward the circulation of the Bible, and what the 
attitude of all toward it should be. 

I. THE CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE. According to the Protestant vi^w 
the Bible consists of sixty-six books — 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the 
New. As an aid to memory, it may be observed that the digits 3 and 9 placed 
side by side give the number of books in the Old Testament, and the same 
digits multiplied give the number of books in the Old Testament, 3x9 equal 27, 
tlip number of books in the New Testament. 



22 CONTENTS OF THE I>"ROTESTANT BIBEE 

The sixty-six books of tlic Bible ^vere being Avritten during a jieriod of 
about sixteen hundred years, counting frcun the time of Moses, about 1500 B. C, 
to the end of the life of the Apostle John, about 100 A. D. The number of 
writers of the whole Bible was about thirty-six. These general facts may be 
thus presented to the eye: 



AUTHORS. . 
BOOKS . . 
CENTURIES . 




Testa- 
minute 



Amono- the Jews there was a three.-fold general division of the Old 
ment— tke^Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:-14). . A more 
division of the Old Testament, and one in more common use now is: 

I The Pentateuch (5)— Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., and Dent. 

II Historical Books— (12)— .losh., Judges, Euth, 1 Sam., 2 Sam., 1 Kings, 
2 Kings, 1 Chron., 2 Ch.von., Ezra. Neh., and Esther. 




THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CANON 23 

III. Poetical Books (5) — Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccl. and Song of Sol. 

IV. Major Prophets (5) — Isaiah, Jeremiah. Lamentations, Ezekiel and 
Daniel. 

V. Minor Prophets (12) — Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Na- 
hum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zeehariah and IMalaehi. 

Ho, Jo., Am, Ob, Jo., 
Mi, Na, Ha, Zc, Ha, Ze, Ma. 
(Ho, Jo, A Mob, Jo 
Mina has a, has a ma.) 
The general division of the New Testament is as follows: 

I. Historical Books (5) — ^latt., Mark, Luke, John and Acts. 

II. Pauline Epistles to Churches (7) — Rom., 1 Cor., Gal., Eph.. 
Phil., and Col. 

III. Pauline Epistl^^s to Churches and Persons (7) — 1 Thess., 2 Thess., 
1 Tim., 2 Tim.. Titus, Philemon and Hebrews (popularly classed among Paul's 
Epistles, but authorship uncertain.) 

IV. General Epistles (7) — James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 Johii, 
and Jude. 

V. Prophecy (1) — The Revelation. 

Into the evidences as to the right of these sixty-six books to a place 
in the Canon of Inspiration, our present limitations will not permit us to go. 
The right and title of each book is well authenticated. Concerning the thirty- 
nine books of the Old Testament, it may be observed in passing, that they all 
have the unqualified approval and recognition *of Jews, Catholics and Protest- 
ants. Concerning the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, observe that 
these all have the recognition and approval of both Catholics and Protestants. 
The general arguments for each are the testimonies of early Christian fathers 
and the character of the books themselves. 

II. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE ACCORDING TO ROMAN CATHO- 
LIC DECLARATIONS. The Roman Catholic Bible contains seventy-three 
books instead of sixty-six. The number in the New Testament is the same as 
in the Protestant Versions — twenty-seven. But in the Old Te.stament, the 
Catholic version contains 46 books instead of 39. The additional books in the 
Catholic version are: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Macca- 
bees, 2 Maccabees. Esther also contains six additional chapters, and Daniel four 
more chapters than Protestant Bibles. The principal argument in favor of 
giving these additional books and chapters a place in the Sacred Canon is the 
fact that they are found in the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Old 
Testament. This version was in general use in the days of the Saviour and the 
Apostles. Therefore Romanists plead that a place should be given to them in 
the Sacred Canon. There has not been, however, unanimous consent among 
Roman Catholics, and those whom they claim as Romanists, to give the Apo- 
crypha a place in the inspired book. They lay strenuous claim to Jerome, tho 
translator of the Scriptures into the Latin version known as the Vulgate (who 
lived from 340 to 420 A. D.) He translated from the original Hebrew and 
Greek, and was insistent that only the books found in the Hebrew text b«J 



24 JOSEPH US, JESUS AND .TEKOME QUOTED 

given a place in the Christian canon. The Hebrew books were then reckoned 
as '22 in number, corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebrew alpha- 
bet, but these included all the 39 books found in Protestant Bibles — the twelve 
minor prophets being counted as one book, Kuth as a part of Judges, etc. 
Writing to a friend — Laeta — concerning the education of her daughter, Jerome 
says, **Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such, 
not by the truth they contain, but out of respect to the miracles contained in 
them, let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom 
they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, 
and that it requi^res infinite pains to look for gold in the midst of dirt." 

Josephus, the Hebrew writer, is also explicit in his testimony, that the books 
now found in our Bibles were all that the Hebrew canon contained. "iWe 
have not an innumerable number of them among us, but only twenty-two 
(following the above enumeration), vv^hich are believed to be divine. Of these, 
five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin 
of mankind till his death. Until the death of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the 
prophets who were after Moses wrote down Avhat was done in their times in 
thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts 
for human life. It is true that our history hath been written since Artaxerxes 
very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority with the 
former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession 
of prophets since that time" (Josephus against Apion, 8). 

Professor Gigot, instructor in the Catholic Theological Seminary in Balti- 
more, Md., in his book, ''Introduction to the Holy Scriptures," admits that 
Justin Martyr, Melito and Origen are exceptions to what he styles "well-nigh 
perfect unanimity" of the early fathers in favor of canonicity of the books 
in the Apocrypha. He gives this as a part of the testimony of Jerome, whom 
Catholics revere as the father of the Latin Vulgate Version: "Whatever is 
beyond these (Hebrew Books) must be reckoned among the Apocrypha. There- 
fore the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus; 
and Judith and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the Canon. What is not 
found in the books of the Hebrew Canon (the same as the thirty-nine books 
of the Protestant Bible), should be put aside, and kept at a considerable 
distance from them. ' ' In another place Jerome says of the Apocrypha, * ' The 
utmost prudence is necessary to seek for gold in mud." (Gigot, page 58.) 

Our Lord and His apostles never quote from any of the apocryphal books. 
They did use the Septuagint Version, but there is evidence that there was a 
Palestinian Septuagint which contained only the 22 books found in the He- 
brew Canon. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, writing to a friend after a visit 
made to Palestine about 172, A. D., enumerated the books of the Old Testa- 
ment after the order given by Josephus. In so doing he calls Joshua "Jesus," 
and Ezra "Esdras". The use of the Greek forms of these names indicates that 
he spoke of a Greek version. From this Dr. Westcott concluded that there 
was a "Palestinian Septuagint " which included only the books found in the 
HebreAV'canon (Westcott 's Bible in the Church, pp. 124, 125; Eiisebius' Eccl. 
Hist. 4:2(3). So we have the testimony of Josephus, J'erome and Jesus against 
the canonicity of the Apocrypha. 



A COMFAHISO// 



POWTS 

orco/VTMSr 



r//£ MM yfffS/ON 



mfMGio/iMfJtyf/{. 



sfyfNTr-rmf£ Boo/fs 



THE 

CANON 



//ot //? //eiren^ Cano/? 






/Vo^ appro yecf d/ 
C/ir/st, /^pojt/ej, 
Josep/7us, Jerome etc. 

/fpo/o^etic 

,5 elf Con I rad fetor/ 

/r?conj/ste/7t 

^i<7t/^ Cano/-?ical 
Scr/pturej 

/4^/ rece/i^ec/ d/ 
t/?e H't^ote C//i/rc/? 



j/xrv-s/x 8oo/rs 

t^ourd /d ttedren^ Canon 

indorsed dy C/?n^t^ 
/fpo6t/ej, Jojep/?i^s 
Jerome^ ftc. 

' Constitute or?e 
/Vor/nom'ouj h^/?o/e 

Co/?s/ster2t //? /tecorJ 
and /?octnnes 

/i'ece^yed dy 
ttie C/?urc/? 
l/rz/yersa/ 



/ir Bfsr OAtL/A /fj^sm 

Con/i/jed H^/t/i Otd Latin 

Corrnpted in /ronjmss/on 

T/ifC Conf/zctmy Fopot JPecrees 

J'^XT Compared ^/tn //et^reiv 

ona^ CreeA^ t^nt //? an 
KN/-7afurat orcter, 
/yto'C/ny f/rst a net 
Jnpren/e a Secondary 
/tntt?or/ty 



T//£/A//Gt/Mfs^^mmni/tt/t 

MfS./ro/n the n^e of Jerome 

t/ot intercdan^ect kynti 
Ott?er yers/onj 

Comparec/ mt/i att Janrces, 
ptnc/ny f/rst and 
foremost tfye 
Le^/vyuayejo/ 
/njp/rat/o/7 



THE 

rmSLAT/OfY 



Jc/?o/nr/y 

S/ny/st?// Litem/ 

Somet/mes Super/or 

Oceas/ona/// dorromd 
///t.t^ i^rnnj/ators 

O/te/rer OCisci/re 

7//7yec/ mt/? /inmis// 
doctr/nes op 

n/t/fsr/tcto/) 



/pest Jc/?o/ars/np of 



\m c. ' 



\ I ffV/ \.ountr/es 
\emlt a/loNy /ni/est/pi7/'/aN 

r^orrect / uc/ct 

L/ear L luminous 



f/NANCfi 



[ 



nei^erent 
nef/ned 

XALT5 THRIST 

TfiEX 

nnoblesLhristian 



2(i Al'OrRYPHAL WRITERS DO NOT CLAIM JNSl^JHATiON 

The writers of the apocryphal hooks do not claim inspiration. The writers 
of Ecclosiasticus and 2 Maccabees both ask readers to excuse their imper- 
fections (Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and 2 Mac. i5.:?A)). And they had reason 
for so doing. In the two books of Maccabees King Antiochus is represented as 
dying in three different places — in Babylon (1 Mac. 6:-t-l(i), in the temple 
of Nanea, Persia (2 Mac. 1:1(0, and in a mountain (2 Mac. 9:28). The added 
chapters in Daniel represent him as being in the lion's den for. six days (Dan. 
14:30). They teach doctrines at variance with other Scriptures, such as the 
transmigration of souls (Wisd. 8:19, 20), prayers for the dead (2 Mac. 12:43, 
44), justiiication by works (Tob. ]2:8, 9). Suicide, magical incantations, and 
other practices forbidden in the Scriptures are related approvingly (2 Mac. 
14:41; Judith 9:2-9; Tobit 6:16, 17, etc). No ^vonder that Jerome warned his 
friends against the apocryphal books. 



QUESTIONS FOE CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What are some teachings held in common by Catholics and Protestants? 
What do they believe in common about the origin of the Holy Scriptures? 

What is the statement of Catholic doctrine concerning the Scriptures in the 
preface of the Douai Version? 

Of how many parts or books does the Catholic Bible consist? 

Into what two general divisions is. their Bible divided? 

How many books in the New Testament, in both Protestant and Catholic 
version? 

How^ many books in the Old Testament in the Protestant Bible? 

How^ many in the Catholic Version? 

In-^o what five divisions is the Old Testament usually divided? 

Give the number and names of the Books in the Pentateuch? 

The number and names of the-Historical Books? 

The number and names of the Poetical Books? 

The number and names of the Major Prophets? 

The number and names of the Minor Prophets? 

According to Josephus, wha.t books did the Hebrew^ Canon contain? 

IIow^ is his testimony confirmed by that of Melito, Bishop of Sardis? 

Do the writers of the Apocr^-pha claim inspiration? 

Do any of them apologize? 

What "are some of their self-contradictions? 

What are some of their contradictions of other Scriptures? 

What did Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, think about the Apocryphal 
Kooks? 



THE I'ATHEK OF THE EN(tL1SH TKIXTED BIBLE 27 

LESSON iV. 
PROTESTANT AND ROMAN VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES 



The Protestant Version 

Every Bible student ought to be familiar with the story of the English 
Bible. It has made the English speaking nations what they are today. When 
■ i'.aii Chief asked Queen Victoria the secret of England's greatness, she 
handed him a copy of the Holy Scriptures in reply. General Grant said, "Hold 
fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties. To the influence of this 
Book we are indebted for the progress made in true civilization and to this we 
must look as our guide in the future." 

We little realize how much the English Bible, as we have it today, has 
.-ost. The father of the first printed English Bible, as well as the first English 
translation from the Greek and Hebrew, was William Tyndale, who was born 
at Slymbridge, Gloucestershire, England, 1484, and w^ho fell a martyr at Vill- 
vorde, near Brussels, Belgium, Oc-tober G, 1536. Not that he was the first to 
give the Word of God to the people of England in their own tongue. Just 
one hundred years before his birth (1381:) there fell asleep in the humble 
vicarage of Lutterworth, a man who had been instrumental in translating the 
Scriptures into the English from the Latin Vulgate — John Wycliffe. That the 
efforts of this man and his co-laborer, John Purvey, were not fruitless is 
evident from the fact that, notwithstanding the bitter opposition to its cir- 
culation, and notwithstanding the fact that copies of it could be multiplied 
only by hand, about 170 manuscripts of their version still exists, five hundred 
years after its production. But it was Tj-ndale 's labors that laid the founda- 
tion of that Version which for three hundred years has been the pride and 
strength of English-speaking people. He left an imprint which time has not 
efTaced. "He established a standard of Biblical translation which others 
followed. His influence decided that our Bible should be popular and not 
literary, speaking in a single dialect, so that by its simplicity it should be 
endowed with permanency" (Westeott). In this undying impress we see the 
fulfillment of his early purp^ose: "If God spare my life, ere many years, I 
will cause the boy that drivcth the plow lo know more of the Scriptures than 
the Pope himself. " 

Tyndale Avas thoroughly educated at Oxford and Cambridge, England. He 
was drawn to Cambridge by the fame of the lectures given by Erasmus on the 
Greek Testament, which did much to stimulate his -purpose to give the Bible to 
his people in their own tongue. That he might carry out this purpose, he 
became an exile from his native island, perceiving "not only that there 'was no 
room in the Lord of London's palace to translate the New Testament, but also 
that there was no place to do it ia all England." The first edition of the 
N9W Testament was printed &t Worms in 1526, and carried back to England, 
Cf>ncealed in bales of merchandise. In 1530 his version of the Pentateuch 



I^^VA 



j.^ - ^rv-^ru-LTLf Li - . - i '-^'^' ''^'^'''^^^''^'^^^^ 



>>^<i^i^ .«^MM«»^» 







William Tyndale 




Vilvorde Castle, where Tyndale was imprisoned 



THE KOMAN CATHOLIC VERSION 20 

jippcarod. In .1535, while revising his version of the New Testament at Ant- 
v,erp, he A^as betrayed by one who professed friendship, Henry Phillips, and 
was hurried to Yillvorde Castle, where he was confined as a prisoner for 
eighteen months and then led forth to the stake. He was not idle during 
those months, if his pathetic letter pleading for warmer clothes, a candle and 
books brought the desired results. This incident recalls the closing verses of 
Paul's epistle to Timothy. It also furnishos proof of his ability to translate 
the Old Testament from the Hebrew: "Above all, I entreut and beseech you 
to be urgent with the procureur that he may kindly permit me to have my 
Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Grammar and Hebrew Dictionary, that I may spend my 
time with that studJ^ ' ' His martyrdom took place October 0, 1536. He was 
first strangled and then his body reduced to ashes. His last words were, 
"I-,ord, open the King of England's eyes." This prayer had strange and 
speedy answer. Version after version appeared, and in seventy-five years after 
his death (1611) the version resulting from the united labors of the scholarly 
men appointed bj^ King James I. appeared and took its place as the sun in the 
literary heavens, and after three centuries of constant use and unsparing 
criticism continues to be the most widely read book in all the world. 

The Roman Catholic Version 

The zeal of the reformers for the spread of the Word of Life bore unex- 
pected fruit in the production of the Catholic Version, 1582-1609. Like Tyn- 
dale's and the Genevan Version, this translation was a product of exile. Dur- 
ing the reig7i of Queen Elizabeth many Catholics sought a home on the con- 
tinent, and a seminary of instruction was established in the French town of 
Douai in 1568, which was removed ten years later to Rheims. The chief 
founder of this institution was Dr. William Allen, Avho had been principal of 
St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, during Bloody Mary's reign — for which he Avas 
rewarded with a cardinal's hat. Dr. Allen was assisted by Drs. Gregory Mar- 
tin, Eichard Bristow, John Reynolds and Thomas Worthington — all former 
Oxford men. They were also associated with him in the translation of the 
Scriptures. Their Version of the New" Testament was published in 1582 at 
Rheims. The Old Testament did not appear until twenty-seven years later 
(1609). It was published in Douai, therefore called the Douai Version. 
This version was translated from the Latin. Thirty-six years before the 
appearance of the New Testament, the Council of Trent had ordained that 
the Vulgate (should be regarded as authentic, and the translators folloAved 
it as their model. The title announced that the translation was " diligentlj^ 
compared with the Greek," but Professor Gigot (Roman Catholic) sa3^s, 
"The desire of abiding by the texts before them prevented the authors 
from utilizing the Hebrew and Greek texts to the extent to which this 
would have been at times desirable." 

The Douai Version as published today differs widely from that of 1582 
and 1609 as it came from the hands of Martin and Allen. Originally the 
version was painfully scholarly. Many Latin terms were introduced, such 
as were beyond the comprehension of the average reader. Under the in- 
•fluence of Protestant versions, the text has been simplified and modernized 
in the course of the years. 



TffE B/Bif /N English Dbess 



6ff££M 



MANl/SC/i/FT S/3lfS 



wycurs vefls/oNmo 

(Wyc/Jf c/ted /Jet) 
mOM VULGATE: 



C/fflH T£JT. D/}/y£/^ 
W£3T B/ DOtyNfALL OF 
CONJTANTlNOPLf \%p 



rmsT r/rwrfD e/f. 

MT. /5/6 
ST£:FH£/^<5 



ALEAANDR//V£M'S. 

2)/f0 r ro £//6U//D /6i8 
TLATUS flECeFTU-5 /6SJ 



£0/r/o//s oFf/.T.sr 
6fi5irCft/T/CS 



/^/LL 

B£AGEL 

G/?/£SBAC/-f 



/iUC, 5CH0LZ, 

T/SCtt£//DORf, 
TftEG£LL£S £TC. 

s/Af/i/r/c Afs. m9 
■yAT/cAri MS. FUB- 

'S9 'DO 



/f£rO/fM£P 
l/£/rS/OA^ 



/300 



/r//£/A7S DOUA/ 
Vf/fS/ON 



/4^t?0 



y^yCL/Z^S 80N£J, 



TYAOALE BOm 



F/imr£D Bwtes 

TrmAits 

T£JTA/>f£NT/S2S 

£f/^. /sjo/ifyM/:/sjt 

COy£/fMl£J 3m£/SJS 

mTrH£tyy^m£/sj7 

^/}£Ar ^/3l£ /S39 
e£/^£yA i5/3i£ /ss/ 
a/S/fOFrS/BlZ /S6S 



f3O0 






/600 



yiurHOff/z£D y£/r./6// 

(all P/f£y/OUS 

SOl//fC£J UJ/UZ£0) 



6/iADUALLy 

^CCaFT£D 



/zoo- 



l?Ol/A/ O. T /609 
f'£/fO/^ yi/L6AT£j 



MT /ffF/fz/^rm 



3 r/M£S £/fOM m2 
TO //SO, r//£ o. T. 
(?A/Ly 0/^C£ 



yy/o^LV c/muuTB? 



o/i/C£A/ny jwff/£ff 



6/f£Ariy MOD/- 
£/££> Sr £/JttO£ 
C//ALLOA/£/^ 



woo 



^£y/j/M co/i/i/rr££ 

/t/'/'a///r£l/ /870 
fi£m£/? //.J /Sd/ 

o.T /aas 

/l//G/(? A/f£/f. /90/ 



/900 



T/iE e 



r/^sr f/rmT£o 



ff£C£A/1£D AOr//£A/m 

aycdoA^ca o£Tf{£/^r 

/S'f6 



3/XT/N££DJr/0// /390 
a£Af£A/r/A/£ '. /S92 



SACERDOTALISM AND CEIIEMONIALISM 31 

Between the Protestant and Catholic versions there is a substantial 
agreement in the great body of the Holy Scriptures. Who cannot find a 
pure gospel in these declarations from the Douai Version: ''For God so 
loved the world as to give His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting" (John 3:16). "Come 
to me, all you that labour and are burdened, and I will refresh you" (Matt. 
11:28). There is no authority to pray to saints as mediators in the Douai 
version of 1 Tim. 2:5: "There is one God, and one mediator of God and 
men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no hint of purgatory in the Saviour's 
words to the dying thief as recorded in the Catholic version of Luke 23:43: 
"And Jesus said to him. Amen, I say unto thee. This day thou shalt be 
with Me in paradise." The self-styled successors of the apostle Peter do 
not find much support for their receiving homage from men in that apostle's 
words to Cornelius when he prostrated himself at his feet, as recorded in 
their version of Acts 10:26: "But Peter lifted him up, saying. Arise, I my- 
self, also am a man." There are differences enough to show that the versions 
have passed through different hands. The substantial agreement of such 
widely differing witnesses is an unanswerable testimony to the integrity 
of the Scriptures. 

The translators of the Eheiras-Douai A'^ersion claimed that it was free 
from theological bias, but we do not read far into the New Testament until we 
find evidence that this claim- is not well founded. Two things characterize 
this version of the Scriptures which also deeply characterize the Roman 
Catholic system of teaching, viz.: Sacerdotalism and Ceremonialism. From 
beginning to end the Eoman Catholic Creed unduly exalts the order of men 
whom it calls priests, and it prescribes forms and ceremonies as indispen- 
sable to salvation rather than simple trust in the divinely appointed Ke- 
deemer. ^ Every student of the original New Testament knows that the 
term "hierus" — priest- — is never employed to designate the office of the 
Christian ministry. This term has a three-fold use in the New Testament: 
(1) Denoting Jewish priests; (2) Christ Jesus as our great High Priest; 
(3) The high privilege of access to God enjoyed by all who believe in Christ 
Jesus. The passages in which it is so employed are 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Kev. 1:6; 
5:10, and 20:6. In each of these references believers are called "priests", 
and the term is used to set forth the free access to God enjoyed by all who 
believe in Christ Jesus. But in numberless instances the term "presbuteros" 
(denoting ' ' elder " or " presbyter ") is translated ' ' priest ' ' in the Douai 
version, as for example in James 5:14: "If any be sick among you, let 
him call for the priests," etc., etc. This change is unquestionably made in 
support of that sacerdotalism which Rome so strongly emphasizes. (For 
other examples see Acts 14:23; 15:2; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Tim. 4:14; Titus 
1:5 — where the command to "ordain priests in every church" is followed 
by the qualification, "the husband of one wife.") 

The bias is equally strong in texts which support another of Rome 's 
leading characteristics — Salvation by ceremony. According to this version 
the substance of the preaching of John the Baptist was: "Do penance for 
the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4), and the substance of our Lord's preach- 



32 ''PENANCE" AND ''REPENTANCE" 

ing was, "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17). 
His commission to His disciples was that "penance and remission of sins 
should be preached in His name" (Luke 24:47). Peter is represented as 
relieving the anxiety of the conscience-smitten multitudes on the day of 
Pentecost b}^ saying, "Do penance, and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). To Simon 
Magus, who was willing to pay any price in the way of outw^ard observances, 
anything except a change of heart and personal amendment, the apostle is 
made to say, "Do penance for this thy wickedness" (Acts 8:22). For other 
examples see Acta 17:30; 26:20; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10; Rev. 2:5, 21; 3:3, 19. The 
original word for repentance (metanoian) means "to think again", hence 
a change of thought, aim and purpose. But according to the Catholic 
interpretation, the Christian life consists essentially in observance of out- 
ward forms. According to the Protestant version (Authorized and Revised), 
it consists vitally in a renewed state of heart and mind, followed and mani- 
fested by conformity of the outward life to the will of God. To substitute 
"penance" for "repentance" does violence to the use of the term in other 
scriptures, especially in those texts which speak of God as repenting (Heb. 
7:21, Jere. 4:28), and in those which speak of Him as working repentance 
in the hearts of sinners, such as Acts 5:31 and 2 Tim. 2:25. Recognizing 
the impieity of representing God as doing penance, the Douai translators 
used the word repentance in the abo\-e passages and a few others of the same 
nature. Consistency requires the same reading wherever the word is found. 
To render the word penance does violence to the whole tenor of our Lord's 
teaching. He did not come to establish and perpetuate a religion of forms. 
He said, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the 
scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 
5:20). His gospel everywhere breathes the spirit that it is not enough to 
. wash the outside of the cup. it must be cleansed also within. There must 
be a renewal of the heart, followed by a true reformation of the life. 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What translator of the English Bible died in 1384? From what did he 
translate and by what moans were his translations given to the people? 

Who was born just one hundred .years after this man's death? What 
purpose did he form in early life? For what did he become an exile? When 
did his first translation of the New Testament appear? What was his last 
prayer before his martyrdom? How was this prayer answered? 

What did the zeal of the Reformers in circulating the scriptures lead 
Roman Catholic scholars to? Who were the translators of the Rheims-Douai 
Version? Why was it so named? When were the different parts published f 
How has it since been modified? 

What two features characterize the Roman Catholic system of faith? 
How are these two characteristics manifested in the Rheims-Douai Version? 
,In the Greek New Testament, what three-fold use is made of the term "hierus" 
or priest? Is it ever applied to a minister of Jesus Christ in the Christian 
dispensation? What false principle does this mistranslation support? 

How is the principle of ceremonialism supported by the Catholic Version? 
According to it, what was the substance of John the Baptist's preaching? 
What was the summary of the preaching of the Lord Jesus? What was 
Peter's answer to inquirers on the day of Pentecost? What was his advice 
to Simon Magus? How does this translation do violence to the heart of the 
Gospel? How does it do violence to texts which speak of God repenting? 



THE SIFFTCJENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTT'RES 33 

LESSON V 
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 



THE RULE OF FAITH (CONTINUED) 

"L I most stedfastly admit and embrace the Apostolic and Ecclesiast- 
ical Traditions and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. 

*'IL I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which 
our Holy Mother, the Church, has held and does hold, to which it belongs to 
judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I 
ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimoui 
consent of the Fathers." (Catholic Creed, Art. 1, 2). 



We have seen that Romanism and Protestantism differ as to the contents 
of the Holy Scripture — the former counting seventy-three books in the In- 
spired Canon, the latter only sixty-six. Let us now proceed to inquire as 
to the degree of authority ascribed to the books recognized by each as in 
the sacred canon. Do they recognize them as containing the whole of the 
revelation which God has given to make men wise unto salvation, or has 
Ho in any vray communicated additional truths which are needful to know 
in order that we may be made partakers of life eternal? Are we to ascribe 
finality to the teachings of Holy Writ, so far as man's present knowledge 
of the way of salvation is concerned, as his means of attaining such knowl- 
edge; or are there other sources of information to which we may look in the 
hope of obtaining everlasting life? The answer given by Rome to this ques- 
tion differs widely from the answer accepted by Protestantism. Rome says, 
"The Sacred Scriptures form a part' of divine revelation; the other part 
being contained in the depository of the Church and designated as the un- 
written word of God" (preface to Douai Version of the Holy Scriptures, 
approved by Cardinal Gibbons), The consensus of the teaching of Protest- 
antism on this subject is that "The Word of God contained in the Old and 
New Testaments is the only and infallible rule of faith and practice." Or, 
to quote the language of inspiration, "All Scripture, inspired of God, is 
profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man 
of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work" (2 Tim. 2:16, 17). 
(We have here quoted the D»uai Version, though preferring the King James, 
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," etc.) 

It may be said that there is therefore no common standing ground 
between Romanism and Protestantism. One relies on Revelation and Tra- 
dition as the sources of its information, the other accepts Revelation alone 
as the source of its authority. We have seen, too, that there is a wide dif- 
ference between the number of books accepted by the two bodies as the 
inspired Canon. Yet there remains a large common ground — the New Testa- 
ment complete, and thirty-nine books of the Old. Rome declares con- 
cerning these, "The Sacred Scriptures form a part of divine revelation." 
Let us see what the portion of these Scriptures we hold in common 
teaches concerning their authority. Rome herself recognizes the right- 



34 INSPIRED OR UNINSPIRED TRADITIONS 

fulness of hearing wliat the Scriptures say on this matter. In sup- 
port of her position on Tradition, Cardinal Gibbons says in the preface 
to the Douai Version: "This distinction is most happily couched in the lan- 
guage of St. Paul: 'iWherefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions 
which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle' (2 Thess. 2:14). 
The Apostle to the Gentiles thus gives precedence to the unwritten word 
of God presented to man by the Church." To the Scriptures Rome goes 
in support of her position on Traditionalism, and to the Scriptures let us also 
go, and by their teaching let us abide. In this preface to the Douai Version, 
the argument is based upon one sitatement of the Apostle Paul. Let us 
examine that statement more closely and also other Scriptures which com- 
mend "tradition" as a source of authoritative knowledge. "Hold fast the 
traditions which you have learned, whe'ther by word or by our epistle." 
Rome says that Paul "gives precedence to the unwritten word" over the 
written, evidently basing this upon the order of the apostle's words, nam- 
ing the "word" before the writing. Thus great authority is ascribed to 
the apostle's words, even to the very order in which they stand. But whose 
"word" does the apostle here commend to the Thessalonians? Is it the 
unwritten word, or teaching, of uninspired men? Does he set his seal of 
approval to traditionalism in general, or only to a limited class of traditions? 
He says, "Hold fast the traditions which you have learned, whether by word 
or by our epistle." He certainly meant only to urge them to abide by the 
teachings which he had imparted — both the oral teachings he had given 
while he was with them in person, and also through the previous letter which 
he had written to them. Thessalonica was one of the cities visited by Paul 
during his second missionary journey (Acts 17:1-9). Hearing later of erron- 
eous teachings which sprang up among them, he wrote the First Epistle to 
the Thessalonians while he was in Corinth, the very first of Paul's epistles, 
in order of time, that have come down to us. Hearing of effects produced 
by that letter, Paul wrote a second not long after the first. Does he in this 
second letter advise them to accept all the traditions which they had heard? 
He himself limits these traditions, which means literally "teachings impart- 
ed ' ', to what they had received from himself, * ' whether by word or by 
niir epistle. ' ' 

In two other passages, Paul commends the acceptance of "traditions". 
One of these is in the same epistle, 2 Thess. 3:6: "Withdraw yourselves 
from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the traditions 
which they have received of us." Here the reference certainly is to the 
teachings of the apostle — his own inspired teachings, not to the traditions of 
uninspired men. The other text is 1 Cor. 11:2, "I praise you, brethren, that 
in all things you are mindful of me; and keep my ordinances (margin, "tra- 
ditions ' ', the Greek word being ' ' Paradosis ' ', which, in the two passages 
cited above, is rendered "traditions"). Could anything be more explicit than 
the fact that when Paul commended the Corinthians for keeping "tra- 
ditions" he refers to his own inspired teachings among them? 

Now when we have examined these three texts, we have considered all 
the passages in the Bible which speak commendingly of "tradition". Are 



TRADITION THE GREAT CORRUPTER 35 

there any of a contrary order? Eight times record is found of our Lord 
Jesus referring to "traditions". Does He in any instance speak approvingly 
of tradition as a means of preserving pure and entire the words of the living 
God? Here are the references: search and see for yourselves: Matt. 15:2, 3; 
and Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, and 13. "Ye transgress the commandment of God by 
your tradition;" "Ye make the commandment of God of none effect by 
your tradition," Twice Paul names tradition — uninspired tradition: Gal. 
1:14 and Col. 2:8. "Being exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fa- 
thers" — the tradition which led him to do many things contrary to the name of 
Jesus. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, 
after the traditions of men. ' ' 

The apostle Peter is good authority with Romanists. What is his ver- 
dict concerning tradition as a reliable means of information or instruction? 
"Ye were redeemed .... from your vain conversation of the tradition of your 
fathers" (l Peter 11:18. Douai Version). 

Dr. A. R. Fausett (of Jamison, Fausett and Brown) truly says that 
these ten passages * ' stigmatize man 's uninspired traditions, ' ' adding that 
the Greek word "Paradosis" is one of the only two nouns in the Greek New 
Testament which numerically equals 666, the mark of the beast (Rev. 13:18). 
"Tradition is the great corrupter of doctrine, as 'euporia' (wealth — the other 
equivalent of 666) is the corrupter of the Church's practice." The same 
writer adds, "Oral inspiration was necessary then, until the canon of the 
written word should be complete. When it was completed, the infallibilLty 
of the living men 's inspired sayings was transferred to the iVritten Word, 
now the sole unerring guide, interpreted by the Holy Spirit. Nothing has come 
down to us by ancient and universal tradition save this, the all-sufficiency of 
Scripture for salvation. * ' 

Other texts often quoted by Romanists in support of tradition as an 
authoritative rule are John 20:30 and 21:25. "Many other signs therefore 
did Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this 
book." Why were they not written? The apostle makes the reason plain 
in the following verse: "But these are written, that ye may believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life 
in His name" (John 20:31). This is as much as to say, "There is no need 
to record any more of the wonderful words and works of the Lord Jesus; 
these are sufficient to make out the case which I set out to establish, viz.: 
That Jesus Christ is the divinely appointed Redeemer of mankind, and that 
all who believe in Him have eternal life." ' There is no necessity to add 
tradition to Scripture, since the Word of God is so complete. With this 
agrees Paul's testimony: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and 
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right- 
eousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly funished unto every 
good work" (2 Tim. ^3:16). "From a child thou hast known the Scriptures 
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15). 

It has also been well asked, if Tradition is to be part of God's appointed 



36 ^ SCRIPTURES AND TRADITION SUPERSEDED 

rule for mankind, why has not the Church which holds this view compiled and 
published a book containing these authoritative sayings of the fathers? 

Scripture and Tradition Superseded 

While Romanism declares her acceptance of the Holy Scriptures and 
Tradition as their Rule of Faith, both have been virtually superceded by the 
dogma of the Pope's infallibility. The Tridentine Creed declares, ''To 
the Church it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the 
Scriptures. ' ' For centuries it was an unsettled question as to w^hat was meant 
by the Church, the Pope or Councils, or both combined. Pope Pius IX. virtually 
settled this question when he formulated and promulgated, without the 
authority of any Council, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. 
Having assumed this authority, he later called the Vatican Council to give 
forma.1 definition and declaration to the prerogative which he had assumed. 
This was done in the decree of infallibility which was enacted July 18, 1870: 
"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman 

Pontiff is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, 

possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that the 
Church should be endowed in defining faith and morals: and that, therefore, such 
definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent 
of the Church, irref ormable. ' ' Added to this unlimited authority vested in 
the pope, there has also arisen in the Church of Rome, what is known as the 
"Developement Theory," the application of which makes it possible for the 
pope to enunciate any doctrine or to prescribe any form or ordinance which 
he may decide to promulgate. It is from the application of this theory that 
such innovations as Purgatory, Mariolatry and many other, teachings received 
their chief support. In his earlier years, Dr. John H. Newman vigorously 
disclaimed that the invocation of the Virgin is necessary to salvation. In his 
Letter to Pusey (page 111) he says: "If it were so there would be grave 
reasons for doubting of the salvation of Saint Chrysostom and Athanasius, or 
of the primitive martyrs. Nay, I would like to know whether St. Augustine 
in all his voluminous writings invokes her once." He says also (page 63) 
that ' ' though we have no proof that St. Athamasius himself had any special 
devotion to the Blessed Virgin, yet he laid the foundations on which that de- 
votion was to rest. ' ' By this he meant that the doctrine of the Incarnation, 
which implies the relationship of Jesus to Mary, carries with it the infer- 
ence or conclusion that Mary is entitled to such honors as Romanists ascribe 
to her, Newman also vigorously opposed the doctrine of Purgatory while he was 
still in the Anglican Church, but when he went over to Rome he bound himself 
to believe and teach as true things which he himself had proven to be false. 
By the dogma of Infallibility and by the growth of the Development Theory, 
all his previous argumentations became valueless. "It rather resembled what 
not infrequently occurs in the annals of warfare; when, after entrenchments 
have been long and obstinately assaulted without success, some great general 
has taken up a position which has caused them to be evacuated without a 
struggle ("Infallibility of the Church" by George Salmon, D. D., page 19.) 

Bellarmine divided tradition into three classes — Divine, Apostolical, and 



THE FATHERS REJECTED TRADITION 37 

Ecclesiastical. Divine traditions are things ordained by Christ Himself, such as 
the number and nature of the sacraments. Apostolic traditions are such as 
were taught by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Ecclesias- 
tical traditions are ancient customs of the Church. Bellarmine includes under 
this classification the observance of Easter and Whitsuntide, the custom of 
mixing water with the Eucharist wine, the making of the sign of the cross, 
etc. The only tradition that has universal endorsement by the Church fathers 
of the early centuries, is to the divinity and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures 
as the Rule of Faith. Tertullian was a man of Puritanic type. He made lists 
of things which were forbidden to Christians. One of these was the wearing 
of a crown of flowers, as the heathen were accustomed to do. It is evidence of 
the estimation in which the Holy Scriptures were held that when he or others 
w^ould seek to bind such rules upon the Christians, these would at once demand 
of him his authority from Scripture for such enactments. "If any thing can 
be established by tradition, there is a full and clear tradition to prove that 
the Scriptures are a full and perfect rule of faith; that they contain the whole 
Word of God, and that what is outside of them need not be regarded" (Sal- 
mon). Basil wrote, "Without doubt it is a most manifest fall from faith, 
and a most certain sign of pride, to introduce anything that is not written 
in the Scriptures." He also says that he says that he "will sparingly employ 
any words , which while they express the doctrine of Scriptures, are not found 
in Scripture itself." Cyprian said, "God testifies that we must do the things 
that are written. ' ' He said also in the same letter, ' ' What do you do when 
the water in the conduit fails? You go back to the source," referring to the 
written word of God. "You may take it as a general rule that there is not 
a father who if his own belief is demanded for something not contained in the 
Scripture will not say with Jerome, ' This, because it has not authority from 
the Scriptures, is with the same easiness disproved as approved; ' * As we accept 
those things which are w^ritten, so we reject those things that are not written ; ' 
'These things which they invent, as if by apostolic tradition, without the 
authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites' " (Quoted by Salmon.) 

If the Protestant position be correct, that the Scriptures contained in 
the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, an all-sufficient rule . of 
faith and practice, what should be our attitude toward this inspired Book? 
Should we not receive it as indeed the Word of the living God and seek to 
conform our lives to its teachings'? Great blessings are pronounced upon 
those who hear and read and remember and obey the teachings of this Holy 
Word. What use are we making of it? If all Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion of God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly fur- 
nished unto every good work, does it not follow that we should let this 
Word of Christ dwell in us richly, and that we should permit it to direct 
and control our thoughts and lives? What will it avail to grow zealous in 
our defence of the Bible in the public schools and the recognition of it as 
the infallible standard of truth and morals, if we do not read and ponder 
its teachings and take it as a lamp to our own feet and a light to our path? 
Here is where as Protestants we manifest a glaring inconsistency. W^e take 



38 THE EIGHT USE OF THE ALL-SUFFICIENT EULE 

lip cudgels against those wTio deny tlie Holy Scriptures a place in the hands 
of our children in the public schools, yet we so seldom take it into our own 
hands and search out what God has revealed therein for the guidance of our 
own lives. If the study of this theme is to be profitable to our own hearts, 
it will cause them to have a deeper reverence for the Word of God, more 
faith in its teachings as His messages, and greater care in seeking to live 
by its precepts and to rest upon its promises day by day. May we not learn 
as Dives learned in torment, what a full and sufl&cient revelation of the way 
of life we have in the Blessed Book. To us our Lord is saying, ''If ye be- 
lieve not Moses and the prophets and the apostles, neither would ye be per- 
suaded thousrh one rose from the dead." 



QUESTIONS FOE CLASS CONSIDEEATION 

What is the teaching of Protestantism as to the sufficiency of the Holy 
Scriptures? 

What is the statement in the preface of the Douai Bible in reference 
to this point? 

iWhat other source of information and revelation do Catholics accept 
in addition to the Holy Scriptures? 

What does Paul teach in 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 about the sufficiency of the 
inspired Scriptures? 

What use of Paul's words in 2 Thess. 2:14 does the preface to the Douai 
Version a;ttempt to make? 

To whose teachings does Paul refer in that verse by the word "tradition"? 

In what other passage does Paul commend the acceptance of "tra- 
dition?" 

How many of these record sayings of our Lord Jesus? 

How' many other references to tradition are found in the New Testament? 

Does He ever speak favorably of tradition? 

What had it done for the word of God? 
Was tradition after the days of Christ and the apostles likely to be a 
safer guide than it had been before? 

AVhat opinion does the apostle Peter express of tradition in 1 Peter 1:18? 

Do the Scriptures ever ,speak favorably of uninspired tradition? 

When they do commend them, is the reference to inspired or uninspired 
tradition? Do the Scriptures place uninspired tradition on a par with the 
inspired writings as a source of revelation and authority? 

What is the only universally accepted tradition that has come to us 
from the apostles? 

Has Eome any good foundation for placing tradition on an equality 
with inspired Scriptures? 

What observations does Dr. Fausett make concerning Scriptural refer- 
ences to tradition? 

What two Greek words contain letters that equal "the number of the 
beast"? 

What use is made of John 20:30 and 21:31? 



THE INTEPPRETATIOX OF SCRIPTURE 3'J 

LESSON VI 
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 



THE RULE OF FAITH (CONTINUED) 
We have considered the differences between Romanism and Protestant- 
ism in relation, (1) As to the Contents of the Bible, the former counting seven- 
ty-three books as belonging to the sacred Canon, the latter only sixty-six; 
(2) As to the Sufficiency of Scripture, Romanism giving to tradition a place 
equal, if not superior, to the written revelation of God. Let us now consider 
the attitude of Romanism and Protestantism on the matter of the interpreta- 
tion of Holy Scripture. Romanism holds that the Church (by which she 
always means the Roman Catholic Church, for she recognizes no other) is the 
sole interpreter of Scripture. In the preface to the Douai Version we read: 
"She (the Church) assumes the office of sole interpreter of the written word, 
thereby rendering her the sole guardian of divine revelation in its two-fold 
form" — the Scriptures and tradition. The Council of the Vatican declared, 
April 24, 1870: "Further, this supernatural revelation, according to the Catho- 
lic Church declared by the Holy Council of Trent, is contained in written 
books, and without writing in the teachings which were received by the 
apostles from the lips of Christ Himself, or have come down to us from the 
apostles themselves at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. ' ' Protestantism holds 
to, and contends for, the right of private judgment in the interpretation of 
the Scriptures, recognizing always the need of the illumination and guidance 
of the Holy Spirit. 

Private Interpretation Denied 

In defence of her claim that the Church," through her popes, bishops and 
priests, is the sole interpreter of Scripture, Romanism depends largely on 
the words of 2 Peter 1:20: "No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private 
interpretation." American Standard Revision: "No prophecy of Scripture 
is of private (margin, "special") interpretation." In the Douai Version, 
which bears the approval of Cardinal Gibbons, the following foot-note is 
appended: "This shows plainly that the Scriptures are not to be by any- 
one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the HoIt 
Scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as 
such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the 
Spirit of God, which He hath left, and promised to remain with His Church 
to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. ' ' 

This is not the Protestant interpretation of this text, and I am per- 
suaded that it is not the true interpretation. To understand the Apostle Paul 
to set bounds and limits to the use of the Holy Scriptures by these words, 
is to wholly miss his great meaning and directly to invert and pervert his 
noble purpose. To accept Rome 's interpretation of this passage is to attempt 
to dam up the river of life and to keep it from flowing into the needy, thirst- 
ing souls of men. The apostle is here speaking of the use that should be 



40 ''YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE HEED^* 

made of the Scriptures, and to this end he lifts our thoughts to their high 
and heavenly origin. Go back a verse or two. * * This voice we heard from 
heaven," Peter says, as one of the eye-witnesses of our Lord's glorious trans- 
figuration on the mount. That was indeed a rare and glorious privilege, 
given only to the three who lived nearest to their Lord. But, adds the 
apostle, "We have a more sure word of prophecy" — "we", including with 
him the whole family of believers — ' ' we have a more sure word of prophecy, 
whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, until the day dawn, and the day- 
star arise in your hearts. ' ' The glittering meteoric shower of 1833 was a 
glorious sight, one long talked of by those who saw it; but to the benighted 
traveler or the mariner at sea, the clear, steady shining of the pole star is 
of greater value. The transfiguration was a glorious scene, and served many 
a gracious purpose. But for our daily pilgrimage across earth's deserts, the 
clear shining of the lamp of Holy Writ is more to our present needs. To this 
lamp "we do well that we take heed." "Knowing this" — adding a still 
greater and higher reason for attending to this shining light. "No prophecy 
of scripture is of private interpretation" — literally, "of private forth-shining 
(epilusis) " — disclosure, origination, inspiration. The apostle, in verse 20, 
is telling of the divine origin of the Bible in order to stimulate us to a larger, 
more reverent, and more confident use of it. No prophecy, no part of th© 
Holy Bible, comes from a merely human source. Men were the channels, 
but the Source was divine. ' ' For ' ' — let us think the apostle 's thought through 
to the end — "for prophecy came not by the will of man at any time; but 
the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (Douai Version). 
Read verses 19, 20 and 21 through from first to last, and see if this must 
not be the apostle's meaning: The Scriptures are not mere literature; they 
are a revelation from God to the souls of men, through men whom God moved 
by His Holy Spirit to this very end. This passage is like Revelation 22:1, 2, 
in which the seer of Patmos says, "He showed me a river of water of Life, 
clear as crystal, proceeding out from the throne of God and of the Lamb." 
The river of life is of heavenly origin, therefore its waters are pure and life- 
giving. And Peter says in that much-disputed passage, the light that shines 
out from the Bible comes from the very heart of God the Father; therefore 
let us attend to it, as unto a lamp that shines in a dark place, until the day 
dawn. 

The interpretation is not only truly exegetical, but it harmonizes with 
the rest of this apostle's teachings and writings, and with the rest of the 
whole Bible. It agrees with his first epistle in which he says, "The word 
of the Lord endureth forever," and then goes on to say, "Desire the sincere 
milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (1 Peter 1:25 and 2:2). It 
agrees with his exhortation, "And add to your faith * * * * knowledge," 
and then in the same chapter points to the Holy Scriptures as the source of 
such knowledge (2 Peter 2:5 and 19). It harmonizes with his thankful ac- 
knowledgment, of the "exceeding great and precious promises" (2 Peter 1:3), 
and his concluding exhortations to "grow in grace and knowledge" (2 Peter 
3:18). It agrees with Rev. 1:3: "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that 
hear the words of this prophecy, and keep the things that are written there- 



HOW TO DWAKF MENTAL GROWTH 41 

in." It agrees with Psalms 1, 19, and 119, all of which extol the scriptures 
of truth and urge the hiding of them in the heart. It agrees with the teach- 
ings of the whole Bible. God gave us this lamp that we might walk in its 
light, not that we might hide it under a bed or a bushel. 

Private Interpretation Defended 

We believe that this is not only the true interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20, 
but that it harmonizes with other parts of Holy Writ. God commanded His 
people to keep the words of His commandments in their hearts, and to teach 
them to their children (Deut. 66:9). A blessing is pronounced upon him who 
meditates on God's law day and night (Psalm 1). Our Lord commanded 
the Jews of His day to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). The Bereans were 
commended above the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures 
daily, to see whether things spoken by the apostles were true (Acts 17:11). 
And what is reading, comparing, weighing and judging, but the exercise of 
private judgment? 

Private judgment is necessary in order to the exercise of that sincere, 
genuine, voluntary faith in God and that love and obedience that are pleasing 
to Him. He nowhere tries to force obedience from unwilling hearts. His 
voice is, ''Who is willing this day to consecrate his service unto the Lord?" 
(1 Chron. 29:5). "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve" (Josh. 24:15). 
"How long halt ye?" (1 Kings 18:21). Paul wrote to the Corinthians, 
"I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say" (1 Cor. 10:14). What is 
that but a call to exercise private judgment? 

To deny the right of private judgment is to dwarf the growth of men- 
tality and spirituality. The Lord endowed man at his creation with the power 
of judgment and choice, and this is one of his innate endowments. Shall 
we say that men and women shall be allowed freedom of thought in reference 
to matters mundane, but that in things which pertain to the loftiest sub- 
jects with which man has to deal, things with which his eternal welfare are 
inseparably linked, matters which lead to the highest and fullest development 
of his God-given powers, he must allow the Church, which will be sihown 
later means the Pope of Rome, who enthrones himself in the Vatican, to do 
his thinking for him? Through all the ages Rome has tried to dwarf the 
growth of the human intellect, as her treatment of a Bruno, a Galileo, and 
countless others attest. To deny men the right of private judgment in matters 
pertaining to religion and eternal salvation is the greatest wrong that could 
be inflicted upon them. 

Such a denial is also a great wrong to society, as well as to the individuals 
who compose it. Rome always tries to be consistent. She not only insists 
on doing a man's thinking for him in reference to religion, but also in refer- 
enxje to politics and many other matters. When the word goes out that a 
certain man is marked for defeat, or for election, as tlie case may be. Catho- 
lics are expected to line up according to the mandates of bishops and priests, 
and the votes thus secured often decide the day. Never before was there 
a greater demand for a careful investigation by every American citizen of 



42 PRIVATE JUDGMENT AND INDIVIDUAL FAITH 

the great problems tliat are before us, and tbe exercise of a free, enlightened, 
independent judgment. 

"God give us men * * * * 

Tall men, sun-crowned men, 

Men who'live above the fog 

In public life and private thinking. ' ' 
Without the exercise of private judgment, there can be no acceptable 
approach to God or worship of His holy name. ''Without faith it is impos- 
sible tu please Him. ' ' But the faith that renders our approach acceptable 
to God is not blind devoteeism, mechanical, servile obedience, which always 
leads to formalism and hypocrisy. Faith that pleases God is an intelligent, 
free-hearted, childlike confidence in Him, which brings us near -to Him because 
we love Him and trust Him, and are eager as His children to know and obey 
His will to the very fullest extent. 

Denial of the right of private judgment must always grieve the Holy 
Spirit, by whom we are sealed unto the day of redemption. When our Lord 
Jesus promises, "1 will pray the Father, and He will give you another Com- 
forter, that He may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth'* (John 
14:16); and again, "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, 
He shall teach you all these things, and bring to your remembrance all that 
I have said unto you" (John 15:26), He is not speaking to the Church, as 
a body primarily, but to the individuals who compose it. Otherwise how 
could we as individuals become partakers of that conviction of sin, spiritual 
illumination, comfort, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost which the Scriptures 
emphatically offer to us as a part of the Christian's heritage? It is true 
that the Church is also divinely guided and strengthened through this illumin- 
ation of her individual members; but it must first come to them as individ- 
uals, or the Church will be left to grope its way in darkness. Men are not 
saved in the crowd, they are saved man by man. Salvation, from first to 
last, is an intensely personal matter, and no one can become partaker of it 
without the exercise of the rational faculties with which men have been 
endowed. To deny the right of private judgment is to place an insuperable 
obstacle in the way of men's salvation. The very essence and sum of the 
ten commandments is to love the Lord our God, with all our heart, with all 
our soul, with all our strength, and with all the mind, and our neighbor as 
ourselves. How can anyone love God with the mind, heart and soul if he is 
forbidden to think for himself concerning God and the revelation He has given 
to us. 

Cardinal Gibbons, in defending the position that the priests of the Roman 
hierarchy must interpret the scriptures to the people, cjt(is the directions given 

in Deut. 17:8, 9: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee thou shalt 

come unto the priests ' ', etc. Here as always in Rome 's teachings, there is the 
bald assumption that Romish priests are the divinely appointed successors to 
the Jewish priests and heirs to every command and promise given to them. 
But aside from this, it is enough to follow the history of the Jewish priests and 
Council through the ages to show the fallibility of all human guides and inter- 



CHKYSOSTOM AND THE READING OF SCRIPTURE 43 

preters. Who committed the greatest crime of the ages — the murder of the 
Son of God — but the Jewish Sanhedrin, or Council, which Cardinal Gibbons here 
takes as the prototype of the Romish hierarchy. Our Lord Jesus appointed 
no such a council to be the sole interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, but He 
does point us to a guide and interpreter on Whom we can always rely. "When 
He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). 

It may be of interest to examine at this point the decree of Chrysostom 
for the study of the Scriptures. He is recognized by Rome as one of the 
eminent fathers of the Church and his sentiments are often quoted, when they 
seem to support Rome's position. One of the reasons given by Roman Catho- 
lics for keeping back the Scriptures from common use is that they are too 
difficult for the unlearned to understand. Let us see how Chrysostom dealt 
with that excuse when his people offered it as a reason why they did not 
read the Bible: 

"It is impossible for you to be alike ignorant of all; for it was for this 
reason that the grace of the Spirit appointed that publicans and fishermen, 
tentmakers and shepherds and goatherds, and unlearned and ignorant men 
should compose these books, that none of the unlearned might be able to have 
recourse to this excuse; that the words then spoken might be intelligible to 
all; that even the mechanic, and the servant, and the widow- woman, and the 
most unlearned of all mankind might receive profit and improvement from 
what they should hear. For it was not for vain glory, like the heathen, but 
for the salvation of the hearers, that these authors were counted worthy of 
the grace of the Spirit to compose the common welfare, but their own glory, 
if ever they did say anything useful, concealed it, as it were, in a dark mist. 
But the Apostles and prophets did quite the reverse; for w^hat proceeded from 
them they set before all men plain and clear, as being the common teachers of 
the w^orld, that each individual might be able, even of himself, to learn the 
sense of what they said from that mere reading. 

* * And who is there that does not understand plainly the whole of the 
Gospels? Who that hears 'Blessed are the meek', 'Blessed are the merciful,' 
'Blessed are the pure in heart,' and so forth, needs a teacher in order to 
comprehend any of those sayings? And as for the accounts of miracles and 
wonderful works and historical facts, are they not plain and intelligible to 
any common person? This is but pretext and excuse and a cloke for laziness. 

"You do not understand the contents; and how will you ever be able 
to understand them if you do not study them? Take the book in your hands; 
read the entire history; and w^hen you have secured a knowledge of what is 
simple, come to the obscure and hard parts over and over again. And 
if you cannot by constant reading make out what is said, go to some per- 
son wiser than yourself; go to a teacher, communicate with him about the 
thing spoken of; show a strong interest in the matter; and if God sees j^ou 
displaying so much anxiety, He will not despise your watchfulness and earn- 
estness; but if no man teach you what you seek for. He Himself will surely 
reveal it. 

"Remember the eunuch of the Queen of the Ethiopians, w^ho, though a 
barbarian by birth, and pressed by innumerable cares, and surrounded on 



44 PHILIP AND THE ETHIOPIAN 

all sides by things to occupy his attention, aye, and unable, moreover to un- 
derstand, what he was reading, was reading, nevertheless, as he sat in his 
chariot. And if he showed such diligence on the road, consider what he must 
have done when staying at home. If he could not endure to let the time 
of his jojjrney pass T\'ithout reading, how much more would he attend to it 
when sitting in his house? If, when he understood nothing of what he was 
reading, he still would not give up reading, much less would he after he 
had learned. For, in proof that he did not . understand what he was read- 
ing, hear what Philip saith unto him; ' Understandest thou what thou read- 
est?' And he, upon hearing this, did not blush nor feel ashamed, but con- 
fessed his ignorance, and said, 'How can I, unless some man should guide 
me?' Since, then, when he had not a guide, he was occupied even so in 
reading, he therefore speedily met with one to take him by the hand. God 
saw his earnestness, accepted his diligence, and straightway sent him a 
teacher. 

'* But there is no Philip here now. Aye, but the Spirit that influenced 
Philip is here. Let us not trifle, beloved, with our salvation. All these 
things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world 
are come. Great is the security against sin which the reading of the Scrip- 
tures furnish. Great is the precipice and deep the gulf that opens before 
ignorance of the Scriptures. It is downright abandonment of salvation to 
be ignorant of the Divine laws. It is this that has caused heresies; it is this 
that has led to profligate living; it is this that has turned things upside 
down; for it is impossible for anyone to come off without profit who con- 
stantly enjoys such reading with intelligence." 

This incident of Philip and the Ethiopian is often cited by Rome's 
teachers as evidence of men 's inability to understand the Scriptures without 
an authority or an interpreter. They say, ' ' Here was a man reading the 
Scriptures, yet the Spirit of God saw that it was necessary to send a teacher 
all the way from Jerusalem to that desert place in order that he might 
interpret to the Ethiopian what he was reading. This, therefore, proves that 
the Church must act as an interpreter in order that the common reader may 
be able to understand the Scriptures." Chrysostom answered this objec- 
tion when he stated that even though this Ethiopian was unable to under- 
stand what he was reading, he was nevertheless reading as he sat in his 
chariot. No Protestant denies the importance of human instructors to en- 
able us to understand more fully what the Word of God teaches. And when 
one applies himself diligently to their study, God not only . sends His Holy 
Spirit to illumine the inspired Word, and to open the eyes of our understanding, 
but often He brings to our aid some one who has a more thorough knowledge 
of the Word to enable us to understand its teachings more fully. 

Again let us be consistent in our attitude toward the Holy Scriptures. 
We insist on the right to read, interpret and apply our Father 's messages 
to our own hearts and lives. Are we living up to our privileges and our 
responsibilities? If an earthly father has left you certain estates in his last 
will and testament, would you be indifferent as to the securing of a know- 
ledge of the contents of that will? The Bible consists "of the Old and New 



OUR OWN USE OF THE BIBLE 45 

Testaments, which simply mean the earlier and the later "will" of our 
Heavenly Father, in which He has bequeathed to us a priceless heritage. 
Yet how many are content to live and die in ignorance of His loving bequest. 
The reason why many neglect the Bible so utterly is because they think 
of it only as a book of demands. They hear only its precepts and prohibi- 
tions, and they think of it only as that which would restrict their rights 
and limit their privileges, whereas it is God's message by which He longs 
to introduce every one into the widest liberty and the enjoyment of the 
highest privileges. But the greatest reason why the Bible is so lightly es- 
teemed by multitudes ii3 because they have not come to recognize in it a 
letter from the dearest of all friends. If they would only listen to its Di- 
vine Author as He says, ' ' Come unto Me, ' ' and would allow Him to draw 
them into a loving acquaintance with Himself, they would then become eager 
to know what He says to them in His messages of love. 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

According to the preface of the Douai Bible, who is to be the sole inter- 
preter of the Holy Scriptures? 

What is the declaration of the Vatican Council in reference to this? 

What is the position of Protestantism in reference to the right of private 
judgment and interpretation of the Scriptures? 

On what verse do Catholics chiefly rely in denying to her members the 
right of private judgment? 

What seems to be the correct interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20? 

How does this rendering harmonize with the preceding and succeeding 
verses? 

If our rendering be correct, what does 1 Peter 1:20 teach as to the origin 
of the Holy Scriptures? 

Do the surrounding verses forbid, or do they encourage, the giving heed 
to the sacred Scriptures? 

What obligation does our Lord lay upon us in John 5:39? For what are 
the Bereans commended in Acts 17:11? 

To whom does the blessedness pronounced in Psalms 1 and 119, and in 
Rev. 1:3, belong? 

Name scriptures which teach the duty of a free choice in matters relig- 
ious. 

How must the denial of the right of private judgment affect individual 
growth and development? 

How must it affect the interests of society? 

What is the sum of the ten commandments? 

What is necessary in order that we love God, "with all the mind"? 

To whom are the promises of the Holy Spirit given? 

What is neccessary in order that men become partakers of these promised 
blessings? Are men saved in crowds, or individually? 

Whom has our Lord promised as the infallible interpreter of Scripture? 

What use did Chrysostom make of Philip and the Ethiopian? 



46 THE CIECULATION AND READING OF THE BIBLE 

LESSON VII 



THE CIRCULATION AND READING OF THE SCRIPTURES 



Protestantism lias stood for the widest distribution of the Scriptures, 
and the most diligent reading and studying of them by the greatest number. 
The Earlof Shaftesbury summed up the duty of everyone to the Bible in these 
four words: ADMIT, SUBMIT, COMMIT, TRANSMIT. Paul wrote to Tim- 
othy, "From a child thou hast known the Holy. Scriptures, which are able to 
make thee wise unto salvation" (2 Tim. 3:15). "Faith cometh by hearing, 
and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17). In one of his hopeful visions 
of the future, the apostle John wrote, "I saw another angel fly in the midst 
of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell upon 
the face of the earth — to every nation, and kindred, and people, and tongue" 
(Rev. 14:6). Today the Holy Bible has been translated, in whole or in part, 
into upwards of five hundred languages or dialects. What so perfect a fulfill- 
ment of Rev. 14:6 has the world ever seen as in the wide dissemination of 
John 3:16 in such a large number of tongues? 

But what has Rome's attitude been toward the dissemination of the Holy 
Scriptures? And what is her attitude on that question today? 

We turn to the By-laws of the Index of prohibited books, enacted by Pope 
Leo XIII, and we learn from By-laws No. V., VI., VII. and VIII. that only 
theologians are allowed to read the Bible, and these only under certain condi- 
tions. A person who reads the Bible not annotated and approved by the Rom- 
an Church commits a grave sin, according to Rome's teaching. 

There has been a good deal of diversity in the opinions and decrees of dif- 
ferent Popes in reference to the reading of the Holy Scriptures by the com- 
mon people. None of them have ever sanctioned the reading of any version 
save those which Rome has approved and in which are found Romish annota- 
tions. The most liberal of all Popes on this subject was perhaps Pius VI. In 
the year 1778 he wrote a preface to an Italian version of the Scriptures 'which 
had been translated by one Martini. In this preface he said, '^The Scriptures 
are the most abundant source of doctrine and morals, and should be left open 
to all." It is a significant fact that the publication of Bibles containing this 
preface have frequently been suppressed. Soon after Pius VI was dead, a re- 
action set in and the infl.uence of his liberal sentiments was soon counteracted. 
Pope Pius VII.. sent a brief, September 3, 1815, to Stanislaus, Metropolitan of 
Russia, in which he declared. "If the sacred Scriptures were allowed in the 
vulgar tongue everywhere without discrimination, more detriment than benefit 
would arise." His successor, Leo XII., in an encyclical of May 3, 1824, sent 
forth this decree: "If the Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately publish- 
ed, more evil than advantage would arise. ' ' Pius VIII reigned but one year, 
yet he found time on May 29, 1829, to condemn Bible societies. Gregory XVI. 
objected to their "publishing the Books of the Holy Scriptures in every ver- 
nacular tongue * * * so as to induce everyone to read them without the aid of 



BIBLE SOaETIES DENOUNCED 47 

an interpreter or guide." Pius IX, followed in the same strain, and on 
December 8, 1864, issued several denunciations in his famous Syllabus of Errors, 
when he classed Bible societies with Socialism, Communism, etc., recalling 
how "pests of this description are frequently rebuked in the severest terms." 

Leo. XIII. published his Apostolic Constitution, in which (Chapter 3, 7) he 
declares, "All versions of the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether 
prohibited, unless approved by the Holy See, or published under the vigilant 
care of the Bishop, with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church 
and learned Catholic writers." The attitude of the Church of Eome toward 
the circulation and reading of the Scriptures is clearly seen in the following 
words in reference to a Bible Society, written by two famous Popes, Leo XII. 
and Pius IX. To quote the words of the former, "You are aware that a cer- 
tain Bible Society is impudently spreading throughout the world, which, 
despising the traditions of the holy fathers and the decree of the Council of 
Trent, is endeavoring to translate, or rather pervert the Scriptures into the 
vernacular of all nations. ' ' Pius IX. said, ' ' These crafty Bible societies, which 
renew the ancient guile of heretics, cease not to thrust their Bibles upon all 
men, even the unlearned — their Bibles, which have been translated against the 
laws of the Church, and often contain false explanations of the text. Thus 
the divine traditions, the teaching of the fathers, and the authority of the 
Catholic Church, are rejected, and everyone in his own way interprets the 
words of the Lord, and distorts their meaning, thereby falling into miserable 
errors. ' ' 

Labored attempts are sometimes made by Catholic* to show that they do 
not disapprove of the circulation and reading of the Scriptures. Much use 
was made of a letter written by Rev. Father Early of Irvington, New York, in 
which he says, "The Catholic Church has never prohibited any of her mem- 
bers reading the Scriptures or Bible. In every family whose means will per- 
mit the buying of a copy, there you will find the Authentic Version of God's 
Word as authorized by the Church and which has come down to us unchanged 
from the time of Christ Himself. But the Catholic Church does object to the 
reading of the Protestant Version, which goes back only to the days of Henry 
VIII. of England, and was then gotten up for obvious reasons. ' ' 

A study of the facts will show that the former of Father Early's state- 
ments in this letter is as incorrect as the latter. The Protestant Version of the 
Holy Scriptures does not have its roots in the times of Henry VIII., but draws 
from the most original sources. And a stud}^ of facts reveals that a copy 
even of Catholic Versions is not found in every Catholic home whose means 
would permit the buying of one. A study of conditions in the South of Ire- 
land early last century revealed the fact that one Protestant family in every 
three was provided with a copy of the Bible, but only one Catholic family in 
every five hundred (Caton's History, 1. 22). At the time of the Louisiana 
purchase, when the legal transfer of that great territory was to be made to the 
United States in 1803, "It was not till after a long search for a Bible to ad- 
minster the oath upon, that a Latin Vulgate was at last procured from a 
priest." (Caton 1., 245.) 



48 THE BIBLE IN SOUTH AMERICA 

In Lower Canada, inhabited largely by French Catholics, "the Bible was 
in general at once unknown and forbidden," while in Quebec as late as 1826, 
many people had never heard of the New Testament (Canton 11. 57-61). In 
that same ypar at the anniversary of the American Bible Society, attention was 
directed to South America, where 15,000,000 people, professedly Christians, 
and under Christian influence for about three centuries, were almost entirely 
without the Bible. As late as 1902, a traveler crossed Brazil, who inquired 
carefully into the subject, found in 1,000 miles bishops and priests in plenty 
but not a single copy of the Scriptures in any lay home; nor had most of the 
residents ever heard of the Bible, though they were able, willing anxious to 
buy a copy when it was shown to them. Whether appeal be made to the col- 
onies of Catholic countries, or to the motherland, it is incorrect that "in every 
family whose means will permit the buying of a copy, there you will find the 
Authentic Version of God's Word as authorized by the Church." The Church 
is very anxious to shield her children from authentic versions. During 1902, 
public bonfires of them were made in Austria, Fiji, Pernambuco, and Peru and 
the Archbishop of Sucre in Bolivia, "actually suggested that capital punish- 
ment should be meted out to a man who was found circulating the Scriptures." 
On February 22, 1903, another public burning of Bibles was made in Pernam- 
buco. 

Rome's leaders have always known how to adopt their tactics to the coun- 
try in which they are engaged in prosecuting their schemes. In such coun- 
tries as England and America or Germany it would not be politic to burn Bi- 
bles and imprison those in whose hands or houses they were found. We must 
go to lands over which Rome has long held her dominating and darkening sway 
if we would discover her true attitude toward the Holy Scriptures. Here is 
an instance which occurred under the stars and stripes in the year of our Lord 
1914: 

A Recent Bonfire 

A remarkable bonfire occurred recently in northern Luzon, (Phiippines.) 
Twenty-five hundred Bibles were publicly burned in the plaza of Vigan, the 
largest and most important city of that section. These Bibles had been dis- 
tributed by Mr. McLaughlin in connection with a cinematograph exhibit of 
scriptural films. The Roman Catholic authorities in turn gave a cinematograph 
exhibit, exacting as an admission fee one of the thousands of Bibles that had 
been distributed. Some 2,500 gave this strange fee, and then the Bibles were 
publicly burned on the plaza by the Catholic authorities. The result, however, 
was that on the day after the bonfire 3,000 additional Bibles M^ere disposed of by 
the representatives of the American Bible Society. This unique advertising of 
the Bible will doubtless make for the furtherance of the Gospel in the Phil 
lippines,.as wide attention has been attracted to the event. This is the way 
Rome shows her interest in the spread of the Holy Scriptures. This burning 
took place January 16, 1914. 

Again, we have only to contrast the part which Rome has had in the trans- 
lation, publication and circulation of the Scriptures with that of other relig- 



THE FEWNESS OF ROME'S TRANSLATIONS 4i» 

ious bodies to show her real attitude on this question. Every Protestant Church 
takes an active part in this work, and during the past century the Bible has 
been translated and circulated in more than four hundred languages and di- 
alects. Even the Greek Church, with its eighty or ninety millions of members 
and adherents, circulates the Bible and her members annually purchase a large 
number of copies from the British and American Bible Societies. Every 
other Church recommends the regular reading of the Scriptures, many of them 
setting forth schemes by which this may be done systematically every year. 
Rome announces no such consecutive Bible readings for her people. While 
Protestants were translating the Bible, in whole or in part, into hundreds of 
languages and dialects of heathen people, Rome made only two translations — 
for Uganda and Japan — and these not spontaneously, but because inquirers in- 
sisted on their possession. The large number of Protestant converts compelled 
the Roman missionaries to accede to the demands of their own inquirers to pos- 
sess the wonderful book which their fellow countrymen were reading. (If other 
modern translations have been made by Roman missionaries during the past 
century, the writer would be glad to be informed of them.) 

Another evidence of the attitude of Rome toward the reading of the Holy 
Scriptures may be seen in her persistent and determined effort to exclude the 
reading of any part of the Bible in the public school. From the earliest times 
in American Colonies, the Bible was one of the textbooks in their common 
school, but through the determined and combined influences of Roman Catho- 
lics and The United Association of American Hebrews the Bible has been ex- 
cluded in many places, and the effort is continued by them to exclude it in 
every State and City in the Union. At a meeting of the Federated Societies 
of American Catholics in Milwaukee, August, 1913, Archbishop Ireland bewailed 
the fact of the secularization of the public schools of America. If there ia 
anything that should make us indignant it is to hear a Roman Catholic whining 
about America's "godless schools." If they are godless, who made them so 
but Rome herself by the exclusion of that Book from which we derive all our 
knowledge concerning the living God? If the schools of America have become 
secular, who but Rome has secularized them? 

The claim is made by Rome that if she allowed her members to read the 
Scriptures without restriction, many of them would ' ' wrest them to their own 
destruction" as the Apostle Peter says about some of the writings of his be- 
loved brother Paul (2 Peter 3:16). But the danger of their doing so did not 
prevent Peter from urging upon those to wliom he wrote that they would "de- 
sire the sincere milk of the word that you may grow thereby" (1 Peter 2:2). 
In his second epistle in which he speaks of people wresting Paul's word, he 
urges us to take heed unto the word of the Scriptures, as "unto a light that 
shineth in a dark place" (2 Pater 1:19). This same apostle speaks of the word 
of God as the means or instrument by which souls are born again (1 Peter 1:23). 

It has been well said by Dr. G. V. Fradryssa, a former Spanish priest and 
instructor in their theological schools, a man who has had large experience 
both in training young men for the priesthood and in the performance also of 
parochial duties, that Romanists are far more likely to wrest the sacraments 



50 THE WRESTING OF THE SACRAMENTS 

to their own destruction, tlian they would do with the Word of God if they 
were permitted to read it, but Rome does not withhold the sacred ordinances 
from her people because of the danger involved. This is not Rome's real reason 
for withholding the Scriptures. 

Are the Scriptures so mysterious and misleading that they cannot be 
trusted in the hands of the common people ? Thast they contain deep, unfathom- 
able mysteries we all admit, but they also set the word of life so plainly that 
even a fool need not err therein (Isa. 35:8). They make the way of life so 
plain that "he may run that readeth^' (Hab. 2:2), often misquoted, "He who 
runs may read". Paul wrote to Timothy as one who from a child had known 
the Holy Scriptures, "which are able to make wise unto salvation" (2 Tim. 
3:15). What are the Gospels but a narrative, chiefly, of the sayings and doings 
of our Lord? Of Him it is recorded that "the common people heard Him 
gladly". Very few in His great popular audiences were able to read, and He 
adapted His discourses to their understanding, drawing His illustrations from 
the every day lives of the people whom He addressed. His enemies testified, 
"Never man spake like this man," and He surpassed all others in the plain- 
ness and simplicity of His utterance. He Himself rejoiced that God had hid 
these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes (Luke 
10: 21). He placed salvation within the reach of people of the simplest un- 
derstanding, and the wise and learned could become partakers of it only by be- 
coming as little children. Are the books which record His words and deeds 
dangerous to put into the hands of the common people? And did not God say 
to the Jew, "These words which I command you this day shall be in thine 
heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children" (Deut. 6:7). 

No better application of this lesson can be made than by accepting the 
words of the Earl of Shaftesbury, already quoted, as the rule of our lives 
with reference to the Bible: "Admit, Submit, Commit, Transmit." This 
eminent, yet lowly, servant of Jesus Christ daily studied God's Word with 
the desire and prayer that its truths would find entrance into his heart and 
mind. He gladly admitted it into his thoughts and counsels, finding it to 
be sweeter to his taste than honey from the comb and more precious than 
the most fine gold. He found it more precious than gold, because it brought 
into his possession many things that gold could not buy — the love of God, 
the gift of life eternal, joy, peace, a spirit of love and compassion, etc. Then, 
having admitted the word into his own heart, he submitted the guidance of 
his life to the voice of Him who spoke to him through its messages. He 
committed his way and his life to Him Who is able to keep that which is 
committed to Him against that day, living daily upon the promise, "As thy 
day, so shall thy strength be." Then, having come into a blessed experience 
through receiving the Word of God into his heart and life, he did all he could 
to transmit to others the joy, the peace and strength which he had realized 
in his own life. Many a night found him in some humble dwelling, the 
abode of want and misery often, reading from the sacred pages to some one 
who was not able to see or read. By sharing the good things received from 
this Word its truths became doubly dear. 



THE PROPEE USE OF THE SCRIPTURES 51 

"For the heart grows rich in giving, 



All its wealth is living grain. 
Seeds which mildew in the garner, 

Scattered, fill with gold the plain." 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What position do Protestant Churches hold with reference to the circula- 
tion and reading of the Holy Scriptures? 

Name texts of Scripture which encourage this practice. 

Of what is the vision of Revelation 14:6 a prophecy? 

What is the attitude of the Church of Rome in reference to the circula- 
tion of the Scriptures? What sentiment was expressed by Pope Pius VI.? 

How was the influence of his preface counteracted by his sucessorsf 

What did Pius IX. and Leo XII. decree concerning Bible Societies? What 
letter of Father Early has been widely quoted? 

What inaccuracy- is found in his statement about the Protestant Version I 

How does his statement about the Bible in Catholic families agree with the 
facts? 

What diflerence was found between Catholic and Protestant families in 
Ireland? 

Were Bibles plenty in New Orleans at the time of the Louisiana Purchase 
in 1803? Did Bible agents find plenty in Brazil or Peru? 

On what Scripture does Rome lay stress in forbidding the free use of the 
Scriptures? 

Did Peter ever forbid the private reading and study of the Scripture? 

Where does he urge and encourage their reading? What inconsistency is 
pointed out by Dr. Fradryssa? 

What does Isaiah say about the highway of salvation revealed in the 
Scriptures ? 

What does Habbakuk say about the heavenly vision? 

What did Paul say the Scriptures had done for Timothy? 

What do the Gospels chiefly record? What class of people did Jesus most 
frequently address? Were His Words above their understanding? 

Within whose reach did He place the knowledge of salvation? Is it im- 
possible therefore for any to find benefit in the reading and study of the rec- 
ord of His life and teachings? 



52 SACERDOTALISM AND SACEAMENTALISM 



LESSON VIII 



THE SACRAMENTS— THEIE NUMBER AND NATURE 



The Catholic View 

''I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the 
new law instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and necessary for the salvation 
of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit: Baptism, Comfirmation, 
Eacharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders and Matrimony, and that they 
confer grace; and that of these three. Baptism, Confirmation and Orders, can- 
not be reiterated without sacrilege; and I also receive and admit the received 
and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administra- 
tion of all the aforesaid sacrements. ' ' — Article III., Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

The Protestant View 

^'A sacrament is a holy Ordinance instituted by Christ wherein, by sen- 
sible signs Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, 
and applied to believers. 

"The sacraments of the New Testament are Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per. 

"The sacraments become effectual means of salvation not from any vir- 
tue in them or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of 
Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive 
them.''— (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Questions 91, 92, 93). 

A Wide Divergence 

We have already discovered the existence of wide diversity of opinion be- 
tween Eomanism and Protestantism in reference to the fioly Scriptures — their 
Contents, their Translation, their Sufficiency and the Use that God designed 
to be made of His Own Words. We shall find an ever-widening and deepening 
divergence between the two systems of faith and practice as we proceed. This 
is especially true in reference to the Sacraments. We have already observed that 
two things characterize the Eoman Catholic Version of the Scriptures — Sac- 
erdotalism and Ceremonialism; or in other words, Sacerdotalism and Sacramen- 
tarianism. The Protestant faith stands essentially for salvation through Jes- 
us Christ and Him alone; Romanism stands preeminently for Salvation by 
Ceremony, The prominence which she attaches to forms and ceremonies is 
shown, 

First, by the place which the sacraments hav*j in her formulated creed. 

We come to this subject directly after the statement of her belief in reference 
to the Rule of Faith. In Protestant formulas of doctrine there is invariably 
first, a presentation of the person, natures, offices and work of the Redeemer 
and the way is shown by which sinners may become partakers of His gracious 
salvation.' Then following such a presentation of the doctrines of grace, comes 
the subject of the Sacraments and their place and purpose in God's plan of re- 
demption. Rome places the sacraments at the beginning of her system, and her 



THE PLACE AND THE NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS 5:: 

reason for so doing is that she maj emphasize this leading element in her 
faith — salvation by sacraments or cei j>monies. The Protestant Church holds 
that sacraments have their place, and i very important place, in God's reveal- . 
ed way of salvation, but it is not the lirst place nor the chief place. 

Second, This leading characteristic of Romanism — to place the principal 
em|)hasis upon forms and ceremonies — appears from the number of sacraments 
which she prescribes. According to the Protestant view there are but two sac- 
raments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but to these Rome adds five more — 
Penance, Confirmation, Orders, Matrimony and Extreme Unction. Not finding 
sufficient opportunity to place her devotees under the yoke of bondage in the 
administration of the two sacraments which our Lord Himself instituted, she 
adds thereto five others, each of which contributes to her great central purpose, 
to bring the consciences of her followers under the domination of the priestly 
hierarchy. 

In the respective definitions of the nature of a sacrament, we shall also 
find a wide divergence between the two systems. According to the Protestant 
view, two things are essential to constitute an exercise or an ordinance as a 
sacrament — (1) Divine institution or appointment, (2) A visible sign. Rome 
also recognizes the need of these two essential marks, but she adds also a 
third characteristic, "They confer grace." This declaration must be construed 
also in the light of a previous statement in the definition of sacrament given in 
Article III. of the Romish Creed, "necessary for the salvation of mankind." 
Great emphasis is placed by Rome in her teachings on this phase of her defin- 
ition, that she may bring her followers under a more complete subjection to 
her dominion. Compare with the foregoing article from the Creed of Pope 
Pius IV. the following authoritative explanation of Cardinal Gibbons: "A sac-, 
ramen^t is a visible sign instituted by Christ by which grace is conveyed to our 
souls. Three things are necessary to constitute a sacrament, viz., — a visible 
sign, invisible grace and the institution by our liOrd Jesus Christ." (Faith of 
our Fathers, page 254). That she puts a chief emphasis on forms, and upon 
forms as she prescribes them, is clearly enunciated in the closing words of 
Article III.: "I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies 
of the Catholic Church, used in solemn administration of all aforesaid sacra- 
ments. " And it is not only implied, but explicitly taught that there is no sal- 
vation except through the observance of the forms which she prescribes. 

The Church of Rome has not always placed the number of sacraments at 
seven. Cassander, a recognized Romish authority (1513-1566) says: "You will 
find none before Lombard's time who could determine the certain number of 
sacraments." It was not until the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, that the 
seven sacraments were formally decreed. In reference to the early fathers it 
has been truly said that they use the word sacrament in a large and undefined 
sense. The term "sacrament" is nowhere found in the New Testament. It was 
derived from Roman usage, the sacramentum being the oath of allegiance taken 
by every soldier of the empire. In the stricter sense, the fathers recognized 
only the sacraments which our Lord Jesus Himself appointed. Augustine says, 
"Our Lord and His apostles have delivered unto us a few signs (sacraments) 



54 THE DIVINE APPOINTMENT LACKING 

instead of many, and tlie same for performance, easy; for signification, most 
excellent; for observation, most reverend — as is the sacrament of baptism and 
the celebration of the body and blood of our God. ' ' Again lie says, ' ' Christ 's 
side was struck, as the gospel speaketh, and presently there issued out of it 
water and blood, which are the Twin sacraments of the Church — water whereby 
the spouse is purified; and blood, wherewith she is endowed" (Symbols for 
Catechumens). Chrysostom, commenting upon the words, "Forthwith came 
thereout blood and water," says, "They flowed not by accident j but because of 
these two, the Church is framed or consisted." (Homily, 84). 

"With reference to each of the five so-called sacraments which Eome has 
added we affirm that there is no evidence that any of them was instituted as 
such by our Lord Jesus Christ. We know when and where each of the two 
sacraments recognized by the Protestant Church was instituted. It was "the 
same night on which He was betrayed" that our Lord took bread and wine 
and said to His disciples, "This do in remembrance of Me." |When our Lord 
gave the commission to His servants to make disciples of all nations. He also 
added as a part of their commission, ' ' Baptizing them into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But where- can authority be 
cited from the words of our Lord or apostles showing the time and place in 
which either Penance, Confirmation, Orders, Matrimony or Extreme Unction were 
appoinjted by Him to be observed by His Church as sacraments until the end of 
time? Most of their writers admit that this definite authorization is lacking. 
In reference to Confirmation, Dr. Doyle 's catechism contains the following 
question and answer: 

' ' Where did Christ ordain this sacrament ? ' ' 

"The time is not certain; but divines most probably hold that it was in- 
s'^ituted at Christ's last Supper, or between the resurrection and the ascen- 
sion" (Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, page 77). 

Of Penance we shall speak more particularly in another lesson. For the 
present we would ask again. Where can reference be found in the New 
Testament where Christ instituted it as a sacrament? What visible sign 
did He ordain to be used in connection with the absolution it is supposed to 
confer? For let us not forget Eome's three marks by which an ordinance is 
entitled to be called a sacrament — (1) Institution by Christ, (2) A visible 
sign, (3) Grace conferred. 

In the ordinance called Confirmation there is a laying on of hands for the 
purpose of conferring the Holy Spirit. Hands were laid on by the apostles 
but it was for the communication of extraordinary gifts. 

In support of Extreme Unction, Mark 6:13 and James 5:14 are the texts 
chiefly quoted by Eomanist writers. ' ' They cast out many devils and anointed 
with oil many that were sick and healed them." "Is any sick among you? 
Let him call for the elders of the the church; and let them pray over him. 
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith sha ll 
save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. ' ' Extreme unction as practised by 
the Eoman priests consists in the anointing with oil those who are supposed to 
toe dying. It is administered for the purpose of saving their souls; but in both 
of the texts here cited, the purpose was to restore to health. Cardinal 



EXTEEME UNCTION, ORDERS AND MATRIMONY 55 

Cajetan, a learned opponent of Luther, was candid enough to write, "It cannot 
be gathered from these words, nor for the effect here mentioned, that the apos- 
tle speaketh of sacramental, or Extreme Unction, but rather of that anoint- 
ing which Christ appointed in the gospel to be used in the healing of the sick" 
(Commentary on James). 

Cardinal Bellarmine also admits that Mark 6:13 does not refer to Ex- 
treme Unction. 

Extreme Unction is not only unauthorized, but it is also most pernicious, 
in that it leads multitudes to depend on the anointing touch of the priest 
instead of upon the infinite merit of the Lord Jesus, and the infinite mercy of 
the living God. 

In reference to Orders, or the ordination of ministers, this was instituted 
by Christ; but He appointed no outward element, such as water, oil or wine, 
to be used in connection with the setting apart persons to His ministry. This 
was done usually by the laying on the hands of presbytery. Ordination ia 
indeed a solemn and impressive service, but there is no authority for reckoning 
it among the sacraments. Evidently Rome's purpose in naming Ordination 
as of the sacraments is to add to the authority of those who enter the sacer- 
dotal office in that great hierarchy. It gives to them power over the souls 
and lives of men, and the more exalted it makes them appear, the more 
despotic the power of her popes, cardinals, bishops, etc., will be. 

Matrimony is ranked among the seven sacraments by the Church of Rome. 
In order to give a semblance of authority for this reckoning, the Douai Version 
renders Ephesians 5:32, "This is a great sacrament". Why they should so 
render "musterium" in this verse, and the same word "mystery" in Col. 1:26, 
1 Tim. 3:16 and elsewhere we cannot understand, unless it be to manufacture 
support for their classification of marriage as a sacrament. Matrimony was 
indeed divinely instituted, but we must go back to Eden to find the date of 
its institution. Paul calls it "a great mystery" and in the same connection 
compares it to the relation which exists between Christ and His people, at 
the same time laying upon those who enter it the obligation to love one 
another "even as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it" — with a 
never-dying, self-sacrificing love. There is no greater love than that, and 
those who live in the marriage relation in accordance with the spirit of this 
exhortation most nearly approach the heavenly type in their home-making. 
Nothing is added to the sacredness of the marriage relation by calling it a 
Bacrament, and there is no authority for so doing. 

"While Rome thus seems to confer added honor on the marriage relation 
by giving it a place among the sacraments, at the same time she degrades by 
forbidding those who minister at her altars to enter into it, as though they 
were too holy for it, notwithstanding the fact that Peter, whom they claim as 
the first pope, "led about a wife" (1 Cor. 9:5,) and although Paul directed 
Titus to ordain as elders (Rome calls them "priests") such as were "the 
husband of one wife" (Titus 1:5, 6.) 

Since there is positively no evidence of Christ 's appointment of Penance, 
Confirmation, Orders, Matrimony or Extreme Unction as sacraments, how can 
we account for their being so regarded by the Roman Catholic Church except 



56 ''SALVATION BY CEEEMONY" 

throngli her desire to multiply forms and ceremonies, and to bind upon the 
people burdens which will place their followers more completely under their 
subjugation? By no means would we be understood as underrating the import- 
ance of the sacraments appointed by our Lord. He did not, however, give them 
the place of first or fundamental importance. He placed the great stress always 
on the right attitude of heart and life toward Himself — "that whosoever be- 
lieveth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life. " " To as many 
as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to as 
many as believe on His name. ' ' The apostles also placed the first emphasis 
on repentance and faith, and the new life, not on, sacraments. Paul wrote to 
the Corinthians, "Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" 
(1 Cor. 1:17), Not that Paul despised or neglected baptism, or the Lord's 
Supper; he gave careful, earnest, inspired directions concerning the latter. But 
the administration of sacraments followed the preaching of the gospel and 
confession of faith on the part of those who heard it. Eome inverts the true 
order. She lays the emphasis upon the observance of forms and ceremonies, 
and thus she leads multitudes to seek "salvation by ceremony" instead of 
salvation through faith in the only Saviour, and through regeneration of the 
soul. It is certainly in accordance with the teachings of our Lord and His 
apostles, that "the sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from 
any virtue in them, nor in him that doth administer them, but only by the 
blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them who by faith receive 
them." 

While we dissent from E-ome 's unwarranted multiplication of the ap- 
pointed sacred symbols of God's grace and love, let us be careful to avail our- 
selves of those which He has appointed and through which He communicates 
tender manifestations of His grace. He appointed baptism and the Lord 's 
Supper, the former to symbolize and apply the cleansing application of the 
Spirit and the blood, the latter to strengthen that faith by which we feed 
upon Jesus Christ as offered to us in the Gospel. 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What place does Rome give to sacraments in her creed? 

What does this indicate as to the emphasis laid upon forms and ceremonies! 

Where do the Scriptures place the chief emphasis in matters pertaining 
to salvation? 

What two things chiefly characterize Rome 's system of doctrine? 

How is her emphasis on ceremony shown in her definition of sacraments? 

What three things, according to that definition, are necessary to constitute 
a sacrament? 

How is this emphasis seen in the number of sacraments reckoned by her? 

What Council fixed the number at seven? When? 

Can Rome furnish evidence of Christ's appointment of Penance, Com- 
firmation. Orders, Matrimony, or Extreme Unction as sacraments? 

By what mistranslation is matrimony brought within the list of sacra- 
ments? 

Did our Lord and His apostles lay their chief emphasis on the observance 
even of the true sacraments? 

How do sacraments become effectual means of salvation? 



THE CONFESSIONAL A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL 57 

LESSON IX 



PENANCE AND ABSOLUTION— SACRAMENTS CONTINUED 



The Church of Rome teaches that Christ established a tribunal on earth 
for the pardon of sin, and that the priests of Rome are the judges in this 
tribunal. The Council of Trent declared that absolution by the priest is 
a judicial act and hurled its anathema against all who deny this dogma: 

"If any one shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is 
not a judicial act, but a bare ministerial act of pronouncing and declaring 
to the person confessing that his sins are forgiven, provided only he believes 
himself to be absolved; or if the priest dees not seriously absolve him, but 
only in jolce shall say that the confession of the penitent is not required 
for absolution, let him be accursed ' '. 

From this and other statements it is apparent that Rome teaches, 

1. That Penance is a divine tribunal or court of justice. 

2. That the priests are the judges. 

3. That the absolution of the priest is a judicial act, conveying forgive- 
ness to the soul of him who has contrition. 

4. That only through this povrer communicated to the priest forgiveness 
is conveyed. 

The texts of Scripture on which Rome chiefly relies for the exercise of 
the power of priestly absolution are Matthew 18:18: "Whatsoever ye shall 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven", and John 20:23: "Whosoever sins 
ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they 
are retained ' '. 

1. Even if the Saviour committed to the apostles the power of for- 
giving sins, it does not follow that this power was transmitted to the priests 
of Rome and to them alone. Surely there was a wide difference between the 
apostles and the priests of Rome. The apostles wrought miracles, let the 
priests of Rome do the same before they put in a claim to be equal to the 
apostles in authority. Ambrose, one of the fathers, said, ' ' They have not 
the inheritance of Peter who have not the faith of Peter ' '. The Greek 
Church is more ancient than the church of Rome and can establish a better 
claim to apostolic descent, but the members of that Church and of all Pro- 
testant Churches are outside of the pale of salvation, according to Rome's 
teachings. 

2. The apostles did not themselves understand their commission to in- 
clude the absolution of sins in the sense claimed by the Church of Rome. 
When did an apostle pronounce the words, "I absolve thee" ("absolvo te, 'M 
over a penitent? Rome says that this form of absolution is necessary, though 
even Father Ligouri admits that many divines teach it did not come into 
use until a thousand years after Christ. When Simon Magus besought Peter 
to pray for him, that the things which he had declared might not come upon 
him, Peter answered "Pray ye to God, if perhaps the sin of thy heart may 



58 APOSTOLIC ''BINDING AND LOOSING'' 

be forgiven". To the multitudes who cried out on the day of Pentecost, 
''What must we do"? Peter answered, "Repent and be baptized, every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". The apostle laid down the con- 
ditions on which forgiveness might be obtained, but in no case are we told 
of Peter or any of the other apostles pronouncing forgiveness over any pen- 
itent. 

3. The apostles, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, bound and loosed 
in the sense of proclaiming in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the prin- 
ciples of His kingdom and the conditions on which salvation was offered to 
sinners. In John 20:22, 23, Jesus says, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose- 
soever sins ye remit," etc. Through the'gift of the Holy Spirit in remark- 
able degree, the apostles were infallibly guided in establishing the principles 
by which the New Testament Avas to be governed throughout the Christian 
dispensation. We find an example of their "binding and loosing" in the 
decree or deliverance of the Council in Jerusalem: "It seemed good to 
the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these 
necessary things," etc. (Acts 15:25.) In that decree they released the people 
from the burdensome rites of the Mosaic law and bound upon them what 
was necessary in the way of faith, repentance and new obedience. They 
loosed believers from circumcisi'on and bound upon them the obligation to 
holy, Christian living. They proclaimed that forgiveness and eternal salva- 
tion might be had through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance 
of their sins. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no 
other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved" 
(Acts 4:12). "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that 
through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:38). 
Peter declared also, "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a 
Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel, and the forgiveness 
of sins" (Acts 5:31). 

The apostle John wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and 
just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ' ' Rome 
tries to make out that our Lord means that we must confess to her priests, 
but it belongs to them to give proof of this interpretation. John explains 
his own words when he says, "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with 
the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous." What can this mean but that we 
must go to this Advocate with our confessions and supplications? 

Much use is made by Rome also of James 5:16: "Confess your faults one 
to another, and pray one for another." Where is the evidence that this 
exhortation has any reference to auricular confession to a priest and to priestly 
absolution? "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another." — 
one for another." According to James, the priests are required to confess 
their faults to penitents as well as the penitent to confess his faults to the 
priest., The apostle's meaning evidently is that we should make acknowledge- 
ment of our faults and wrongs one to another and should be mutually for- 
giving one to another and should pray one ■ for another. Each one should 
deal with offenders in the spirit of compassion, considering themselves, l«st 



"DO PENANCE '^^ A MISTRANSLATION 5i> 

they also be tempted. Yet Rome presses this text into a semblance of support 
for auricular confession and priestly absolution. 

As we have previously stated, the Douai Version has for one of its leading 
characteristics the .rendering of "metanoio" by "Do penance" instead of 
"repent," its evident and essential meaning. "MetaniOio" means "to "think 
again" and implies and requires a change of heart, which is the essential 
requirement in order to enter the kingdom of our Lord. Rome makes John 
the Baptist declare to those who came to his preaching, "Do penance, fo" 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand." They represent our Lord as beginning 
His ministry with the same exhortation, "Do penance, for the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand" (Mark 1:15). Rome represents the apostle Peter as 
giving the same answer to the multitudes who cried on the day of Pentecost, 
"What must we do?" "Do penance, and ye shall receive remission of sins." 
Such a translation and such a use of these texts as Rome makes in support 
of judicial absolution by her priests, represents John the Baptist, our Lord 
and His apostles as setting up a religion of formalism instead of calling upon 
men to be renewed in heart and to be transformed in their lives. 

The discernment of the Gospel meaning of repentance was one of the 
turning points of Luther 's spiritual emancipation. Until he was thirty-six 
years old he labored under the impression that "penitence" was something 
to be done; for "repent ye" was in the Vulgate translated, "Do penance." 
It was regarded as passing through a course of penitential discipline pre- 
scribed by the priesthood. But when he saw that the original Greek word 
really meant "change of mind/" the joyful conviction took possession of 
his soul that it was not submission to the dictates of the priests that it 
enjoined, but a direct dealing with God as He called on men to humble 
themselves before Him. With Luther and his friends "repentance" was 
thenceforth a spiritual process which man was held by the Gospel responsible 
for initiating and carrying out, but which could in reality be accomplished 
only by the power of the Holy Spirit. 

The views of Calvin on the spirituality of repentance coincided entirely 
with those of Luther. He held it right that men should be summoned to 
face this first grave duty as one directly incumbent on them. Only he was 
also most anxious to deliver men from the idea that they could developc 
this repentance themselves, or that it was confined only to the preparatory 
stages of the Christian life. Hence he laid great stress on the truth that 
repentance is a lifelong process which can be duly carried out only through 
the filial fear of God which takes possession of the heart in saving faith 
and regeneration. 

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, published by the decree of 
Pope Pius v., we read, "The penitent casts himself at the feet of the priest, 
to testify by his demeanor that he acknowledges the necessity of eradicating 
pride, the root of those enormities which he now deplores. In the minister 
of God, who sits in the tribunal, as his legitimate judge, he venerates the 
power and person of our Lord Jesus Christ; for in the administration of this, 
as in that of the other sacraments, the priest represents the character and 
discharges the functions of Jesus Christ" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, 
Dage 182). 



60 OBJECTIONS TO THE CONFESSIONAL 

Thus the Church of Eome arrogates to herself the function that belongs 
to God alone. How often in His gracious proclamations has God declared 
that to Him alone belongs the forgiveness of sin«! "I have blotted out. 
as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and as a cloud thy sins, return unto me" 
(Isa. 44:22). "1, even i, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for 
Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 43:25). **Let the 
wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him 
return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him, and to our God, 
for He will abundantly pardon" (Isa. 55:7). The prayers for forgiveness re- 
corded in the Bible are addressed to God Himself, not to any human repre- 
sentative of God. "God be merciful to me a sinner." "Have mercy upon 
me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; according to the multitude of 
Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from 

mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin Against Thee, Thee only 

have I sinned" — and who but God can forgive? 

Our Lord teaches us to offer as our daily petition, as often as we pray 
for our daily bread, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." 
Eome teaches that confession must be made to the priest at least once a year. 
' ' The Church has defined the period within which we are bound to discharge 
the duty of confession; it commands all the faithful to confess their sins 
at least once a year" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, page 193). It re- 
commends also as frequent confession as the suppliant is in danger of death. 
But when are we not in danger of dying? What day in life is there on 
which we do not need to seek forgiveness? 

Among the objections raised to the Confessional, these are well worthy 
of consideration: 

1. It assumes prerogatives that belong only to God, as has been here- 
tofore set forth. 

2. It gives an unwarranted power to the priests over men and women, 
over families, the state, etc. He knows to a great extent the family secrets, 
even though there be but one member ol a household that confesses to him. 
He who bears the office of "God in the confessional" (Dens' Theology, 
Vol. 6) is no ordinary being. "How can that man be resisted who can entice 
by the offer of paradise or frighten by the terrors of hell?" The daughter 
entrusts to him what she would not confide to her mother. The wife, kneel- 
ing by his side, whispers to him what she would not reveal to her husband. 

^ 3. Because the confessional is immoral in its character and results. 
All mortal sins, with all the circumstances attending them, must be detailed 
in the privacy of the confessional. Mothers, daughters and wives kneel 
at the feet of the priest and narrate their most secret thoughts and sins. 
Treatises on the nature of sin have been composed by Ligouri, Dens and 
others for the guidance of the confessional, treatises so polluted and filthy 
that they are fit only for the abodes of hell. Some years ago, during a con- 
troversy with the editor of the Pittsburgh Observer on the nature and effects 
of the confessional, the present writer made the remark that if the questions 
taught young men in Eoman Catholic seminaries for their guidance in the 
confessional were printed in either of our papers, they would not be allowed 



TESTIMONY OF A SPANISH PRIEST (il 

to circulate in the United States mails.. This statement being challenged 
by the editor of the Observer, I went to a library where there were Latin 
editions of the works of Dens and Ligouri, all from Catholic publishing houses. 
I cited volume, chapter and page, where the editor of the Observer might 
find all the evidence he desired. The reply called forth no further denials 
or questions. 

Many distressing instances of the polluting effects of the confessional 
might be cited but this would only add to baleful influence exerted by this 
unwarranted institution of Kome, by which she retains her usurpation over 
the consciences of millions. We close the discussion of this subject by i 
quotation from "Roman Catholicism Capitulating before Protestantism," by 
G. V. Fradryssa, who says of himself in an address to Cardinal Gibbons: 
"Cardinal Gibbous, do not think that some sectarian is speaking to you. 
A man is speaking to you who has visited more seminaries than there are 
in North America; who has lived more than twenty-five years among priests 
and seminarists, who has heard thousands of confessions. See what ordinarily 
happens. It is horrible, but it is true. The youth makes a compact with 
vice. He makes it under the most horrible conditions, as a hypocrite and 

a vow-breaker We are morally convinced that if a society could 

be formed with the object of indemnifying the parents for the expenses they 
have incurred for their boys, and that if some dignified office were given to 
the seminarists, ninety per cent, of them would abandon their career between 
the ages of tAventy and twenty-five. My long experience and over one 
thousand cases authorizes ine to formulate such proportion" (Romanism Capit- 
ulating before Protestantism, pages 249, 250). 

We add also the following quotation from the same authority regarding 
lack of divine authority for the so-called sacrament of Penance and its ac- 
companying institution, Auricular Confession: 

"Had auricular confession been a divine precept, in the apostolic and 
sub-apostolic epoch, we should frequently find it recommended. Take the 
sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist; there is not an apostle or an 
apostolic father of the apostolic period w^ho does not speak of them. But 
why are they silent as to auricular confession? Is this not the strongest 
possible argument against its existence? And the argument is still further 
strengthened if we add that the first w^ords which we find on confession refer 
to another kind, and not to auricular confession. There are a multitude of 
witnesses with regard to public confession, both in the Orient, and in Europe, 
namely, the councils and the Fathers, in the first century, who tell us of 
confession; why, then do we not find among them a clear and definitive refer- 
ence to auricular confession? Had it been general and obligatory, had it 
been observed by all the faithful, how could we account for this premeditated 
silence? And that our authorities are silent on this point will be admitted 
by anyone who has made even a cursory study of the tradition and the history 
of the sub-apostolic period. Moreover, the language of St. Augustine and 
St. Chrysostom shows beyond a doubt that auricular confession did not exist 
in the first centuries. For if it had existed as a divine precept, the language 



62 THE CONFESSIONAL DEGRADING TO PRIEST AND PENITENT 

of these holy Fathers would have to be interpreted as being opposed to it, 
a supposition that would be offensive and almost blasphemous. 

"It is therefore evident fco every impartial historian, that confession, like 
celibacy and the doctrine of infallibility, is of purely ecclesiastical origin. 
And again, the Roman Church is contradicting herself. Romanism teaches 
that contrition wipes out the sins before absolution by the priest. Do not 
say to me here that this is conditional on the vow or the intention of con- 
fessing them; for the best and sanest theologians do not hold such a vow 
to be explicitly made, but reduce it to the simple intention of complying with 
some other condition imposed, and therefore they themselves proclaim that 
no such obligation as a divine precept exists, and that the simple confession 
or an expression of detestation of the sin, uttered before God with true sorrow 
fo having committed it, is sufficient. 

"There being, as we have seen, no Divine precept such as the sacrament 
of confession, the Church would undertake a reform for its own benefit by 
abolishing this obligation. It is one of the most objectionable practices for 
the faithful. The majority of those who separate from the Roman Church 
do so because of this humilating precept. It may be argued by the Romanist 
that those who leave the Church because of confession do so because they 
wish to continue in sin and could not do so if required to confess. In rebuttal 
it is enough to say that the vast majority who renounce the Church do so, 
because they are satisfied that the confessional is but another of the ecclesiast 
ical sophistries for retaining power over the minds of the masses who do 
not investigate for themselves, and are either cont,^nt to remain in subjection 
or are made so through fear and superstition. It may be said in general 
that it has fallen into disuse. On the other hand, it involves great dangers, 
where no benefits appear.. The practice of confession is one of the most 
inimical to celibacy. The priest is not made of brass, as Job says, nor is 
he an angel, as unfortunately we all know. And how could a man remain 
chaste, who by virtue of his office constantly hears the most inciting refer- 
ences, and is brought in contact with scenes most likely to inflame even, the 
least ardent imagination? On the part of the faithful no reform is to be 
seen. The Latin nations are on the whole more immoral than the Anglo- 
Saxon. 'Whenever the faithful shall accustom themselves to confess to God 
and to feel true repentance for their sins, then their desire to depart from 
evil will become more firm, and their repentance more effective and lasting 
The false hope that sin is forgiven in the act of absolution, and the absurd 
assurance that it remains forgiven after the penitent has risen from kneeling 
before the priest, dull the pangs of conscience and kill the sorrow of sin. 
But when the believer, the true believer, finds God standing between his 
conscience and his sin, then he will feel that he is not forgiven until he has 
truly atoned for it, and a deeply felt sorrow has wiped it out. If we add 
to this argument the further statement that in some dioceses, and as far 
as may be seen, everywhere in general, in view of the latest doctrine of the 
Church, the confessional is in many cases a menace to honesty, not only 
the Church but even the governments ought to ask and work for its abolish- 
ment. ' ' 



THE BLESSEDNESS OF CONFESSION TO GOD 6:i 

While we reject Eome's method of doing "penance" as subversive of 
that repentance unto life in which the sinner, ''out of a true sense of his 
sin, and with an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does with grief 
and hatred of his sin turn from it unto God with full purpose of and en- 
deavor after new obedience," let us not forget the absoftite necessity of 
genuine repentance if we would enter the kingdom of heaven. Both John 
the Baptist and our Lord Jesus began their ministries with the message, 
"Kepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." That message has never 
been withdrawn. What is the kingdom of God but the reign of God in thi 
hearts of men? No one can enter that kingdom save by the door of true, 
unfeigned repentance of all sin — the sin of unbelief, of rebelliousness, of 
unwillingness to surrender heart and life to His gracious guidance. While 
we refuse to enter the confessional box to pour out our confessions in the 
ear of sinful men, let us not forget to draw near unto God and pour out 
our souls in humble, unreserved confession to Him. Oh, if we only realized 
what enriching blessings this would bring! See the prodigal as he returns 
to the father against whom he had so grievously sinned. Does he need to 
beg and plead for the father to soften his heart toward him and to receive 
him as one of his hirelings? No, he sees him a great way oft'. He runs to 
meet him. He throws his arms about him and gives him a tender welcome 
back to the place and privileges of sonship. And to us our Father says, 
"Return unto Me, and I will have mercy upon you, I will abundantly pardon." 



QUESTIONS FOE CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What tribunal does the Church of Rome teach that Christ established? 
Who are the judges in this tribunal? 

••iiat is the declaration of the Council of Trent in reference to this? 
What four declarations are involved in this decree? 
On what texts does Rome rely chiefly for sacramental absolution? 
If Christ did give this authority to the apostles, does it follow that the 
same right w^as conferred upon the priests of Rome? 
What Church has a stronger claim to apostolic succession? 
Did the apostles themselves absolve those who came to them? 
What terms or conditions of pardon did they proclaim? 
What laws and regulations did the apostles bind and loose? 
~"w were they qualified for this service? 
To whom should confession be made? 
Who only has the power to forgive sins? 
What use is made by Rome of James 5:16? 
What is the evident meaning of that apostle's words? 
On w^hat mistranslation does Rome largely base her dogma of penance? 
How^ does God proclaim His sole right to forgive? 

To whom does our Lord bid us come for forgiveness in the Lord's prayer? 
Hw often does Rome require confession to the priest? 
How often does our Lord teach us to pray for forgiveness? 
What are some leading objections to the Confessional? 
What testimony is given by Dr. G. V. Fradryssa? 



64 THE NUMBER ''SEVEN" IN THE BIBLE 

LESSON X 



B^APTISM— SACRAMENTS CONTINUED 



We have endeavored to point out Rome's over-emphasis on the sacraments 
as seen in the unwarranted multiplication of their number and also by plae 
ing undue stress upon those which the Church Universal recognizes as having 
divine appointment. As viewed by the Church of Rome the Sacrament pre- 
sents the point at which the work of the Church comes into vital contact 
with the spiritual life. Tor this reason, as we have seen, the Sacraments are 
treated of in the Tridentine Creed immediately after its declaration con- 
cerning the rule of life. Protestant theologians, on the other hand, discuss 
the Sacraments only after the consideration of such vital matters as faith, 
repentance, etc. Among the reasons assigned for the institution of Sacra- 
ments, the Council of Trent declared, ' ' The first is the weakness of the human 
mind; for we see it so constituted by nature that no one can aspire to mat- 
ters of mental and intellectual knowledge except through the medium of 
things that are perceived of some sense" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, 
Question 9). They teach that the employment of symbolic elements is indis- 
pensable to the nature of man as at present constituted. It is also added, 
''Symbolic signs bring the higher world near to sense and at the same time 
communicate from this world the capacity for receiving its influence." Rome 
urges this principle as her reason for the multiplication of Sacraments beyond 
what were plainly instituted by our Lord. In Question 14 of the Catechism 
of the Council of Trent it is stated, "The greater the number of aids to sal- 
vation and a life of bliss which the people shall understand to have been 
provided by the Divine goodness, the greater must be the , piety with whicb 
they direct all the powers of their souls to praise and proclaim the singular 
beneficence of God toward us." The first Canon of the Council's decree says: 
' ' If any one saith that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all institut- 
ed by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that they are more or less than seven, to-wit, 
Baptism, Confirmation, The Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders and 
Matrimony; or even that any of these seven is not truly and properly a sacra- 
ment, let him be anathema." The chief Biblical evidence in behalf of the 
number of sacraments claimed by Rome is neither more nor less than the 
prevalence of the number seven in the Scriptures. There are seven days in 
the week; every seventh year was a Sabbath; every seventh time seventh 
year was a jubilee; there were seven golden candlesticks, seven stars in 
Christ's right hand, and seven Spirits before the throne. Hence it is said 
to be fitting that there should be seven sacraments. It was Peter Lombard, 
a school man of the twelfth century, who hit upon the number seven; and 
no special objection to this definition having been raised in the succeeding 
Council of Lyons and Florence, the Council of Trent formally decreed that 
this number should be retained. In seeking support for this number thus 
arbitrarily agreed upon, mediaeval theologians began to claim that this number 



DO THE SACRAMENTS ''CONFER GRACE"! 65 

falls in ^^itll the iliffereiU ages of man's life and of the essential require- 
ments of his nature. Thomas Aquinas was one of the first to point out thi-i 
analogy. Man is born; he needg to be strengthened; he requires nourishment; 
when he falls into sickness he must be restored; he must live in recognition 
of legitimate authority; he has to provide for the continual existence of his 
species; when life comes to an end in this world he must especially be pre 
pared for that which is to come. Rome claims that these various wants are 
provided for in the Seven Sacraments. In Baptism man is born again; in 
Confirmation, he receives strength for the conflict with sin; in the Holy Supper 
he is supplied with spiritual nourishment; in Penance he is restored and healed; 
in Matrimony he is united in a heavenly alliance with one of his fellow crea- 
tures for the propagation of the race; in Orders he is supplied with an infal- 
lible spiritual ruler and guide; in Extreme Unction he receives a parting 
preparation for entering into the anseen world at death. In making these 
claims, Rome virtually sets her own wisdom above that of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who did not think it necessary to appoint special symbolic signs 
through which to provide for these various necessities of mankind. It is plainly 
manifest that in making such additions to the divine orders, Rome had an eye 
to her increased influence and domination over the hearts and minds of mankind. 
Since, according to her teachings, these multiplied wants of humanity can be 
met only through sacramental observances, and since no sacrament can be ad- 
ministered except by her constituted authorities, therefore the whole world 
becomes dependent upon Rome for these things which are so essential to its 
present and eternal good. 

This domination over hearts and lives is made more complete by the teach- 
ing of Rome that "the sacraments confer grace." The Council of Trent pro- 
nounces her anathema upon any one who says: "That the Sacraments of the 
New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not 
confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto" (Canon 6) ; 
also upon * ' any one who says that by said Sacraments of the New Law grace 
is not conferred through the acts performed, but that faith alone in the divine 
promises suffices for the obtaining of grace" (Canon 8). The Roman Catechism 
interprets these utterances to mean that "unless the recipients themselves 
wish to defraud themselves of so great a good and to resist the Holy Ghost 
nothing can prevent their receiving (through the sacrament) the fruit of grace' ' 
(Part 2, Chap. 1, Question 19). Mohler, an eminent expositor of Romish doc- 
trine, says that "the religious energies of the human soul are set in a new 
motion by the Sacraments, in as much as its divine contents fertilize the 
soul of man. quicken it anew, draw it into deepest fellowship with God and 
operate in all men, who show themselves capable of receiving its blessing, or, 
as the Council expresses its view, do not place any hindrance in the way. ' ' 
Rome thus teaches that each of the so-called Sacraments which she enumerates 
is necessary in order to attain the special grace associated with it. Baptism 
is indispensable for salvation, and Penance for the forgiveness of Post-Bap- 
tismal sin. It is true that in order to avoid the terrible issues of this principle 
certain exceptions are made in favor of those who desire to partake of the 
sacraments without being able actually to partake, and certain restrictions 
are relaxed as to the person by whom they are to be administered. But of 



'66 LUTHER /VND OTHER REFORMERS ON THE SACRAMENT8 

the general principle of the necessity for receiving the Sacraments through 
Rome 's administration there can be no modification. It is also |)lainly man- 
ifest that through these teachings Rome placed an intolerable yoke upon 
the necks of mankind, and one of the blessed results of the Reformation 
was the throwing off of this yoke. ' ' Luther did not abjure the whole Romisli 
sacramental system. Some of the old prejudices adhered to him to the last. 
He contented himself with throwing off the outer yoke and restoring bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper to their rightful position. But the Reformers 
were not content with any such half-way measures. Nothing could satisfy 
Calvin and his followers bat to take the only two sacraments instituted by 
Christ and assign to them no higher position or influence than could be justi- 
fied by the teachings of Scripture. The keen and prolonged discussion of 
this topic into which the Protestant theologians were drawn gave rise to the 
very careful statements in the confessions of the Reformed Churches; and 
these leave us in no doubt of the way in which they regard the tenets of Rome. 
The sacraments do not contain the grace which they signify, nor do they 
impart that grace by the mere act of their reception. Faith is everywhere in 
the Scriptures set down as the act of the soul on which its salvation turns; 
and it is only as faith is maintained and the power of the indwelling spirit 
thereby received, that a sacrament can impart any benefit. The Westminster 
Catechism reproduces the teaching of the Reformed Churches when it says: 
'The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in 
them or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ 
and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.' (Shorter 
Catechism, Question 91.) On this point Luther diverged to some extent from 
the Reformed teaching, led astray by attaching a one-sided meaning to the 
Lord's statement on the agency at work in the new birth, he supposed that 
the water of baptism was absolutely essential to regeneration, that it must 
have, though only through the word, a certain virtue for the communication 
of blessing. The Lutheran view, however, is largely neutralized by the feature 
in it, that it invariably holds the absolute necessity of faith upon the part 
of those who would enjoy the blessing of the Sacrament" (J. P. Lilley, D. D., in 
''Principles of Protestantism".) 

This same thoughtful writer adds th" following discriminating statement 
as to the middle gound held by the Reformers, neither assigning to the sacra- 
ments an efficacy which our Lord did not give to them, nor undervaluing them 
as an appointed means through which He confers His grace upon those who by 
faith receive them. "Since they held that the soul resting by faith on the 
Son of God offered in the Gospel and through Him on the Father, could receive 
through the Spirit all the blessings of salvation, the Reformed Churches could 
not admit that the Sacraments were absolutely necessary as the means of 
salvation, either in its beginning or its progress, but this view did not prevent 
their acknowledging the obligation to use the sacraments that lay upon all 
believers. They contended, and on their principles rightly, that the necessity 
of receiving the sacraments was not that of means, but only of precept. ' ' 

There is nothing in the nature either of the blessing of salvation, nor in 
the Sacraments themselves, that limits our Lord to them as a channel for the 



ROME'S ADDED CEREMONIES IN BAPTISM 67 

communication of His grace. But He has appointed them as tests of our 
obedience, through which we declare to the world and to the Church that we 
acknowledge the authority of King Jesus and submit ourselves to the appoint- 
ments which He has ordained. 

In view of Rome's teachings concerning the Sacraments as outlined above, 
we are not surprised to discover that baptism has assumed the form it now has 
in the worship of that Church. While Rome recognizes water as the matter or 
element used and the sprinkling of it as the chief or central action, the Romish 
Church has added ceremonies of her own which she requires to be observed, 
some before the administration of the rite, s.ome at the font itself, and others 
after baptism has been performed. First, the water to be used in Baptism is 
to be specially prepared. The Baptismal Font must be consecrated and the 
oil of mystic union added. At the door of the Church, the priest breathes three 
times in the face of those who are to be baptized, applies salt to the mouth, 
makes the sign of the cross on the forehead, eyes, breast, shoulders and ears, 
and finally anoints the nostrils and eai's with spittle. After the performance 
of these ceremonies, the persons to be baptized are brought to the baptismal 
font, and after being called to renounce Satan are sprinkled with water. The 
baptism being thus performed, the priest anoints the crown of the head with 
oil, puts on a white garment and sets a lighted candle in the hand. The 
Catechism of the Council of Trent adds its explanation to the various parts 
of the service thus prescribed: ''The baptismal water is consecrated with the 
oil of mystic unction; this cannot be done at all times, but on the vigils of 
certain festivals, which are justly deemed the greatest and most holy solemn- 
ities in the year, and on which alone, except in cases of necessity, it was the 
practice of the ancient Church to administer baptism. But although the 
Church, on account of the dangers to which life is continually exposed, has 
deemed it expedient to change her discipline in this respect, she still observes 
with the greatest solemnity the festivals of Easter and Pentecost, on which the 
baptismal water is to be consecrated. (''Catechism of the Council of Trent,") 

"If the person to be baptized is an adult he himself answers the interroga- 
tor; if an infant, the sponsor answers according to the prescribed form and 
enters into a solemn engagement for the child. 

' ' The breathing in the face denotes the expulsion of the devil and the rest- 
oration of the new life. The sign of the. cross on eyes and ears sets forth the 
dedication of the physical energies to God 's service. The spittal on the nostril 
and ears, the opening of man's faculties for the influence of the heavenly 
kingdom, the anointing of the head, the consecration of the life, the white 
garment the beauty of the holiniess imparted and the burning light in the hand 
the new light of life kindled in the soul. The salt in the mouth imports 
that the recipient shall be delivered from a corruption of sin, shall experience 
a relish for good works and shall be nurtured with the food of divine wisdom. 
His forehead, eyes, breast, shoulders, ears, are signed with the sign of the 
cross, to declare that by the mystery of baptism, the senses of the person 
baptized are opened and strengthened to enable him to receive God and to 
understand and observe His commandments. His nostrils and ears are touched 
with spittal, and he is then immediately admitted to the baptismal font. By 



68 BAPTISM AND SALVATION 

this ceremony we understand, that as sight was given to the blind man, whom 
the Lord, having spread clay on his eyes, commanded to wash them in the waters 
of Siloam, so by the efficacy of holy baptism, a light is let in on the mind 
which enables it te discern heavenly truth.*' (Catechism of the Council of 
Trent.) 

And so at length each part of the ceremony is described in this catechism. 
Instead of a white dress, infants receive a white kerchief, accompanied by the 
words, "Receive this white garment, which mayest thou carry unstained 
before the judgment seat of our liOrd Jesus Christ, that thou mayest have 
eternal life. Amen. ' ' 

'*To signify that faith received in baptism and inflamed by charity is to 
be fed and augmented by the exercise of good works, a burning light is next 
put into his hand. Finally, a name is given w^hich should be taken from some 
person whose eminent sanctity has given him a place in the catalog of the 
saints. This similarity of name will stimulate to the imitation of his virtues 
and the attainment of his holiness; and we should hope and pray that he who 
is the model of our imitation may also, by His advocacy, become the guardian 
of our safety and salvation" (Catechism of the Council of Trent.) 

It will thus be seen that Rome has not only multiplied the number of sacra- 
ments, but she has greatly added to the ceremonies attached to the truly 
Scriptural sacraments. Thus she has sought to make the reception of needed 
spiritual blessing dependent upon acts or ordiances administered by her priests, 
thus increasing the dependence of the people upon them and the yoke of sub- 
ordination w^hich they thus lay upon them. The result of such additions, and 
Rome's teachings concerning the necessity of these various operations, has been 
to lead multitudes to rely upon forms instead of exercising a vital faith in 
Jesus Christ. Rome's use of sacraments has led multitudes to believe that a 
symbol may be for that which it symbolizes. It is like the men of Israel 
sending for the ark of God to save them from the Philistines instead of 
humbly, penitently and believingly supplicating the God of Israel Himself for 
His help and deliverance. Rome's multiplied forms, instead of the simple 
ordinance of baptism as our Lord appointed it, lead her devotees to depend 
for the grace of salvation upon the sacrament itself, instead of upon Jesus 
Christ the only Saviour of lost mankind. 

Protestants also object to the Romish doctrine of the absolute necessity of 
baptism. They emphasize that as a Sacrament instituted by Christ it should 
be observed by all that believe in His name and profess to be His people. 
But this necessity is nowhere set forth as absolute. It is true that our Lord 
said, *'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16) but 
the careful reader will observe that in the second member of that same com- 
mand our Lord says, * ' He that believeth not shall be damned. ' ' That baptism 
is an obligation resting upon us. Protestantism clearly and emphatically teach 
es, as is clearly stated in the first part of this commission given by our Lord 
to His ambassadors; but the omission of the mention of baptism from the 
second member leaves it possible for those who truly believe and do not have 
an opportunity to be baptized after coming into the faith to have eternal 
salvation through faith in His name. Evidently the thief upon the cross 



. BAPTISM AND THE COVENANT OF GRACE «9 

did not receive baptism, but to him the Lord said, "Today shalt thou be with 
Me in Paradise." 

While we have thus sought to point out Rome's errors and unwarranted 
additions to the true sacrament of Baptism, and while we have endeavored to 
show that she has perverted this sacred and significant ordinance into a means 
of usurping an unwarranted dominion over the hearts and lives of her mem- 
bers, we hesitate not to say that in our judgment Protestants in general have 
swung to the opposite extreme in reference to the place which Sacraments 
should have in their thoughts and lives. We condemn the formalism or cere- 
monialism into which Rome has led multitudes through her perverted teach- 
ings. But multitudes of professing Protestant Christians evidently have no 
higher or truer conception of the nature and solemnity of these ordinances. 

Most Protestant parents in Churches which administer baptism to infants 
are anxious to have their children baptized, many simply because they regard 
it as "proper form," others because of the superstitious fear that their child 
will be lost if it dies unbaptized; yet how many fail to have that understanding 
of the blessed privilege this ordinance represents or the sacred obligations 
which it lays upon those w^ho present their children for its reception. On the 
day of Pentecost Peter declared, ' * Repent and be baptized, every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ, unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for to you is the promise and to your 
children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call 
unto Him" (Acts 2:38, 39.) Those who present either themselves or their 
children for baptism thereby declare publicly their acceptance of the heritage 
of blessing promised in the Covenant of grace. Peter's words, "The promise 
is unto you and unto your children, " recalls God 's words to Abraham when 
the rite cf ' ' /] ''I will be a God unto thee and to 

thy seed after thee." If there be true faith in the hearts of parents who 
present their children in baptism, then there is an acceptance on their part of 
God's covenanted mercies for themselves and for their children. Parents are 
careful not to alienate an earthly estate from their children by neglect or 
misuse; but Oh, how many are careless or indifferent as to the heritage of 
blessings contained in the covenant of grace. In order that they may claim 
these covenant promises for their children, they must first accept and appro- 
priate them for themselves. The promise is, "I will be a God unto thee and 
to thy seed. ' ' There is priceless, infinite good in this covenant, for in God all 
good things are centered. If parents were more earnest in their own accept- 
ance of these covenanted mercies and in imparting to their children the knowl- 
edge and the influence which it is their duty to transmit, there would be less 
room to lament that so many of the baptized youth of the Church never 
enter into the privileges which it is theirs to enjoy. 

"Baptism is a sacrament wherein the washing with water in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our 
ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace 
and our engagement to be the Lord's. 

What a priceless chain of blessings is here "represented, sealed and 
applied" to all who by faith receive this ordinance for themselves or for their 



70 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM 

children! (.1) Our ingrafting into Christ, as a stem or bud is grafted into the 
living vine or the trunk of a tree; (2) Partaking of the benefits of the coven- 
ant of grace, which includes God Himself and all the good which He has 
promised to bestow upon His children; (3) Our engagement to be the Lord^s. 
In baptism there is a public recognition of the solemn and sacred obligation 
which rests upon us to be faithful to our God in all the duties which He requires 
of us. 

jWell would it be for all to ponder prayerfully and often the privileges and 
blessings wrapped up in the covenant of grace, of which baptism is the sign 
and seal. As the rainbow is a pledge that God will fulfill His covenant to 
Noah to the end of the world, so is baptism a pledge that He will make good 
to all who accept His covenant, **I will be a God to thee and to thy seed 
after thee." How can any one afford to neglect the provisions of this 
covenant? They are priceless in value. They place within our reach blessings 
of the richest sort. Union to Christ brings with it life, light, pardon, peace, 
joy and strength. Why should we not prize and improve to the fullest degree 
the blessings offered in Him? 



QUESTIONS FOE CLASS CONSIDEEATION 

According to Eome, what is the point at which the work of the Church 
comes into vital contact with the individual spiritual life? 

What did the Council of Trent declare as to the necessary connection be- 
tween the human mind and the senses? 

What did they declare to be indispensable to man's nature as at present 
constituted? « 

Where do they claim to find the basis for seven sacraments in the Scrip- 
tures? 

What seven-fold necessity of man's nature do they point out as corres- 
ponding to this? 

How does Eome by this means increase her domination over the souls of 
men? 

What do they teach as to the power of the sacraments to confer grace? 

What distinctions did the Eeformers draw in reference to this subject? 

Did Luther ever free himself wholly from this Eoman yoke? 

Did the Eeformers teach that the observance of the two sacraments is a 
matter of indifference? 

What additional ceremonies does Eome add to the sacrament of Baptism? 

How must the water be prepared? Why does the priest breathe in the 
face of the candidate? What does he apply to the mouth? What sign does he 
make repeatedly? What ceremonies follow the sprinkling with water? What 
significance is ascribed to each of the different rites? 

What difference between the Eomish and Protestant belief as to the neces- 
sity of baptism? 

Do Protestants teach that baptism is a matter of indifference? 

Is the mere formal observance of this sacrament confined to Eomanists? 

Of what is Baptism a public acknowledgement? 

Why should parents be more anxious to secure thp divine inheritance for 
themselves and their children? 

What three great truths are symbolized in the ordinance of baptism? 



PROTESTANT DEFINITIONS OF THE LORD 'S SUPPER 71 



LESSON XI 



THE SACRAMENTS (CONTINUED)— THE LORD'S SUPPER 



Romanists and Protestants agree in naming the Lord's Supper, or the 
Eucharist, as one of the sacraments instituted by our Lord. The term ' ' Euchar- 
ist" means "Thanksgiving," and this name was early applied to the Lord's 
Supper because it is so essentially an ordinance of thanksgiving. See how 
prominent the Lord's giving of thanks is made in Matt. 26:27 and Mark 14:23; 
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24. 

According to the Westminster Catechism this sacrament is thus defined: 

What is the Lord's Supper? 

Ans. The Lord's Supper is a sacrament wherein, by giving and receiving 
bread and wine according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth, 
and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by 
faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their 
spiritual nourishment and growth in«grace. 

What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper? 

Ans. It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's 
Supper that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord 's 
body, of their faith to feed upon Him, of their repentance, love and new 
obedience, lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves. 

Wide as is the diiference between the Romish and Reformed views of 
baptism, they are far more divergent in reference to the Eucharist or Lord's 
Supper. The difference between the Romish and Reformed views in reference 
to the Ordinance is the difference between a sacrament and a sacrifice. Rome 
claims to observe it as a memorial, but this thought is entirely overshadowed 
by her teachings with reference to it as a sacrifice. The moment we accept 
Rome's dogma as to the Real Presence and as to the Oblation which is offered 
by the priests everytime they administer this sacrament, the thought of the 
Lord's supper as a memorial is wholly superseded. Why should anyone insti- 
tute a memorial to keep him in memory if he himself is visibly and corporally 
present? If Rome's teachings concerning the nature and purpose of this 
sacrament are true then the words of our Blessed Lord, ''Do this in remem- 
brance of Me, ' ' have no longer either fitness or significance. The Reformers 
are unanimously emphatic as to the importance of the proper observance of 
the Lord's supper. The very fact that the words of institution, with the ac- 
companying events and instances, are recorded in three of the Gospels and 
again with greater fullness in 1 Cor. 11; that the words of our Lord to His dis- 
ciples on that occasion are so fully recorded in John 13-17, gives assurance 
as to the great importance that should be attached to this ordinance and the 
care with which it should be ..observed. According to the Reformed teachings, 
the Lord's Supper serves many great purposes. 

1. It is an instructive ordinance. In this respect, as in many others, it 
takes the place of the passover. It was provided in the law that when children 



72 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPPER 

should inquire as they witnessed the observance of the passover, "What mean 
ye by this service?" that occasion should be taken to teach the inquirers 
concerning God 's gracious deliverance of His people and His subsequent good- 
ness to them. And simple though the Lord 's Supper is, in its elements and 
actions, it is full of instruction to those who have the mind to properly re- 
ceive it. Some of the truths necessarily taught or implied are: 

(1) The Incarnation of our Lord. If He had not come in human flesh He 
could not have said, ' ' This is My body, " " This is My blood. ' ' 

(2) It testifies to the reality and intensity of our Lord's sufferings and 
deaths. It tells of a body ''Broken" and of blood ''shed." It is the death of 
Christ that it celebrates, not His birth, although this is implied. 

(3) It teaches the vicarious nature or purpose of His sufferings and 
death, "Broken for you," "Shed for you." 

(4) It teaches the continued presence of Christ in His Church and His 
return again to judge the world. Every time this ordinance is truly cele- 
brated Jesus is present by His Spirit and He is saying, "Take eat," "Dxink 
ye of it, ' ' implying that He is graciously offering Himself in this ordinance 
to all who have knowledge to discern the meaning of His gracious offer and 
faith to feed upon Him as He offers HimseW for our salvation. 

5. It is a communing ordinance. In it the true participants hold com- 
to reward His people. "Ye do show forth My death until I come. " , 

2. The Lord's Supper is also a communicating ordinance, one in which 
He actually communicates His grace and strength to those who have faith 
to perceive and receive Him. 

3. The Lord's Supper is a covenanting ordinance. In it we not only 
declare our acceptance of the Lord Jesus in all His saving offices and benefits, 
but also our engagement to be the Lord. We receive Him as ours and we 
dedicate ourselves to Him. The true communicant can adopt the language of 
Solomon's song, "My Beloved is mine and I am His." 

4. It is a "Witnessing ordinance. "Ye do show forth My death." We 
declare the fact of it, we keep alive the memory of its occurrence, we bear 
testimony to the purpose for which it was endured. This ordinance also, in 
a very real and impressive sense, helps to keep alive the knowledge of the 
coming again of Christ at the end of the age. 

5. If its a communin<g ordinance. In it the true participants hold com- 
munion or fellowship with God as they have vividly set before them the 
tokens of God's unspeakable love for them, and as they become participants 
of His grace through the operations of the Holy Spirit. They also hold, 
communion one with another, realizing and declaring their relationship to 
each other as children of a common Father, redeemed by the same precious 
blood, indwelt by the same Spirit of holiness, and share in a common hope 
of meeting their Lord and of sharing with Him tbe glory that shall be. 

Now all this requires spiritual discernment and an appropriating faith. 
Hence the need for great care in preparing ourselves for its proper observance. 
' ' Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of 
that cup." And the richness of our- enjoyment and participation in promised 
blessings will be in proportion to the sincerity and earnestness of the prepar 



SACRAMENT OR SACRIFICE 7:: 

ationB made for its proper observance. There are those who excuse themselves 
from the observance of the Lord 's Supper because of the sanctity which the 
apostle has thrown around it and the earnest exhortations to make proper 
preparation for its observance. They remember his searching words, "Whoso- 
ever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, 
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. ' ' They say that rather 
than run the risk of bringing down upon themselves the Lord 's condemnation, 
they will abstain from participation in this ordinance. 

They forget that by holding themselves aloof from its observance they 
deprive themselves of the benefits and blessings which our Lord has wrapped 
up in its proper observance. They forget that the apostle has said, "If we 
would judge ourselves we would not be judged." They w^ould rather take their 
chances of being condemned with the ungodly world rather than be chastened 
with God's people. The danger is not in the observance of the Lord's Supper, 
but in the careless manner in which it is often observed. There is greater dan- 
ger in the neglect than there is in the observance. He who seeks the Lord wath 
true heart and earnest spirit will assuredly receive the blessing from Him 
who appointed this feast. He is grieved when we make light of His ordinances 
and go our ways to our merchandise or our farms, or our social engagements, 
as well as if we were to come thoughtlessly, recklessly to His Holy Ordinance. 

The Romish View 

All this has little or no significance to those who have been taught Rome 's 
dogma and practices in reference to the Lord 's Supper. The bread and the 
wine are no longer memorials of our Lord's broken body and shed blood, for 
they are transformed into the actual substance of His flesh and blood, even 
though the accidents of the bread and Avine may still remain. The Ordinance 
is no longer a memorial of what our I^ord suffered on our behalf on Calvary, 
nineteen hundred years ago; but the bread and the wine become an oblation 
which are actually offered in sacrifice as an atonement for sin. Instead of 
these simple emblems recalling wdth gratitude and love the great sacrifice 
which our Lord made on our behalf, thus calling forth adoration and conse- 
cration, they become the "Host," which must receive religious veneration 
from all who behold. Hearing mention made of the name of Jesus a little 
girl said, "I saw Jesus today; He was that bread which the priest held in 
his hand." Her attention and affection were thus diverted from the Lord 
Jesus Christ who said lovingly, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me,'' 
and Who took them up in His arms and blessed them, to the wafer which she 
had been taught to believe was the actual body of the Lord and Saviour. 

That we may know just what the teaching of Rome is in reference to 
tkis subject is, let us give careful attention to Rome's own deliverances upon 
it. First, let us examine the 

Fifth Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

"I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is oft'ered to God a true, proper 
and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. And that in the most 
holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are truly, really, and substantially the 



74 DECEEES OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 

body and bloody together with the soul and divinityj of our Lord Jesus Christ; 
and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into 
the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; which 
conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also confess, that 
under either kind alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacra- 
ment." — Extracted from the ^'Ordo Administrandi Sacramenti, " P. 67. Lon- 
don, .1840. 

To this let us add the deliverances of the Council of Trent on which the 
above article is based. That Council decreed as follows: 

''Canon 1. If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with 
the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, 
are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of tie most holy 
Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as in a sign, or in a figure, or 
virtually, — let him be accursed. 

' ' Canon 2, If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine 
remain in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body 
and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular 
conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole 
substance of wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine 
still remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most apply calls transub- 
stantiation, — let him be accursed. 

''Canon 3. If any one shall deny, that in the venerated sacrament, of 
the Eucharist, entire Christ is contained in each kind, and in each several 
particle of either kind when separated, — let him be accursed. 

"Canon 4. If any one shall say that, after consecration, the body and 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is only in the wonderful sacrament of the 
Eucharist in use whilst it is taken, and not either before or after, and that 
the true body of the Lord does not remain in the host or particles which have 
been consecrated, and which are reserved or remain after the communion, — 
let him be accursed. '^ 

The Eeal Presence 

The Church of Rome teaches that when the bread and wine are blessed 
by the officiating priest, these elements are changed into the actual body and 
blood of our Lord. To quote Cardinal Gibbons again: "Among the various 
dogmas of the Catholic Church, there is none which rests on stronger Scriptural 
authority than the doctrine of the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus in the 
Holy Eucharist.'' ("Faith of our Fathers," Page 276.) Then follows a chap- 
ter of argument in support of this position. 

He first takes up what he calls "the promise of the Eucharist" — the 
words of our Saviour in John 6, His discourse on the bread of life, after feed- 
ing the five thousand. It must be evident to any candid reader, that this 
chapter has no reference to the Lord's Supper. It was not yet instituted, and 
our Lord was simply improving an occasion, on whjch the minds of the 
people were occupied with the provision He had furnished the day before and 
the manna by which God fed their fathers in the wilderness for forty years, 
seeking to lift their thoughts to Himself as the only One Who was able to 



THE REAL PRESENCE IN THE SUPPER 75 

satisfy the wants of their immortal souls. To attempt to reduce from our 
Lord's improvement of that miracle an argument in favor of transubstautia- 
tion only illustrates and emphasizes the words of Jesus in the same chapter: 
"It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing" (John (i:63.^ 
Of these words we have an explanation in 2 Cor. 3:6: ''The letter killeth, 
but the Spirit giveth life." Cardinal Gibbons applies John 6 to the Lord's 
Supper only when it suits his purpose. When discussing the Romish practice 
of withholding the cup from the laity, he seeks to set aside John 6:54, as 
having no binding reference to Communion in both kinds. But is it not 
reasonable to understand that if any part of this chapter establishes a 
doctrine concerning the Eucharist, then every part of it must be so under- 
stood and applied? 

The chief reliance is on the words of institution, "This is my body;" 
' ' This cup is the new testament in My blood. ' ' Another example in which 
the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. Why does not Rome press wifi 
the same literalness the words of the Master, "I am the door;" "I am the 
vine;" "I am the light?" Everyone understands thtat by such figures 
Jesus sets forth His offices and mission to mankind. So when he says, "I am 
the bread of life," He teaches that in Him alone is that which satisfies 
the immortal soul. 

Light is thrown on the words of institution by the declared purpose for 
which it was instituted: "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19.) 
' ' As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord 's 
death till He come" (1 Cor. 11:26.) Jesus thus declares that the purpose of 
the institution of the Supper was to be a commemoration. Note also that He 
did not say, ' ' As often as ye eat My body and drink My blood, ' ' but 
' * As often as ye do eat this bread and drink this cup. ' ' The bread 
remains bread, and the wine remains wine. Cardinal Gibbons lays a 
great stress on Paul's warning against unworthy communicating, claiming 
thaf the peril of so doing arises from failure to recognize the real body and 
blood of the Lord Jesus. But who does not perceive that Paul bases his 
warning on the failure to exercise that spiritual discernment which recognizes 
the commemorative purpose and character of the institution? 

The doctine of transubstantiation is not in harmony with the teachings of 
other Scriptures which represent the body of our Lord Jesus having ascended 
to the Father's right hand, there to abide until He comes again to judge th2 
world (Acts 1:11;) and especially Acts 3:21: "Whom the heavens must receive 
until the restitution of all things." Yet if Rome's dogma of the Real Presence 
is true, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus are in every place where the 
sacrament of the Supper is observed. 

There is a real presence in every proper observance of the Lord's Supper. 
He is representatively present in the elements which symbolize and commemo- 
rate His incarnation, suffering and death. He is vitally and potentially present 
in the Person of the Holy Comforter. He is graciously present in the merits 
of His atoning sufferings and death, of which all who truly communicate 
partake by an appropriating faith. 



76 JOHN WYCLIFFE ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

John Wycliffe, translator of the Scripture into English, who died a hundred 
years before William Tyndale was born (1384) bore a decided testimony 
against Rome *s dogma of Tran substantia tionu This was one reason why his 
bones were exhumed by order of the Council of Constance, forty-four years 
after his death, and were burned to ashes. The following are quotations from 
his sermon on the text, ' ' This is My body. ' ^ 

"These are the words of giving, not of making, which He said after 
breaking bread, then parting it among His disciples and apostles. ' ' 

* ' If thou sayest that the flesh and blood of Christ, that is to say, His man- 
hood is made more, or increased, by the ministration of bread and wine, then 
thou must consent that the thing that is not God today shall be God tomorrow: 
yea, and that the thing which is without spirit of life, but groweth in the 
field by its kind, shall be God at another time. And if thou makest the body 
of the Lord by these words, ' This is My body, ' thou must thyself be the person 

of Christ, or else there is a false God «... You have no authority or power 

left you by which you should do this." He then compares those who call the 
bread a god to Aaron and the people who made the golden calf and worshiped 
it. 

"Ye say that in every host each piece is the whole manhood of Christ, or 
full substance of Him. Ye say as a man may break a glass into many pieces, 

and in every piece thou mayest properly see thy face ye see the mind 

or likeness of your face which is not the very face; so the bread is the figure, 
or mind, of Christ 's body in earth, and not the very body. ' ' 

(Following the order of the Romish Creed, further consideration will be 
given to Transubstantiation and the Mass in later chapters.) 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

According to the Westminster Catechism, what is the Lord's Supper! 

"What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper?" 

What is the essential difference between the Romish and the Reformed 
views of this sacrament? 

According to Reformed interpretations, is the Lord's Supper a memorial 
or a sacrifice? 

If Rome's interpretation of it as a sacrifice is correct is there then any 
room to think of it as a memorial? ,. 

How often is the institution of the Lord's Supper recorded? 

What must we gather from this as to the appointment of this institution ? 

What are some of the facts and doctrines taught by the Lord's Supper? 

In what sense is it a communicating ordinance? In what a convenanting 
ordinance? In what a witnessing ordinance? In what a communing ordinance? 

What is essential that we may receive these advantages and blessings 
through it? 

What care is necessary to its proper observance? 

Is this sufficient excuse for its neglect? 

What does the Fifth Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. declare? 

How is' this further explained by the Council of Trent? 
• In what sense does Rome teach that there is a real Presence? 

According to the Reformed view, in what sense is there a real Presence? 

What was the belief of John Wycliffe in reference to Transubstantiation. 



THE ARTICLE OF A FALLING OR RISING rHT'ROH ' 

f.ESSON XTI 



JUSTIFICATION 



Creed of Pius IV., Article 4. 

"I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been 
defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent, concerning Original Sin 
and Justification." 



Martin Luther declared that "the doctrine of Justification ia the article 
of a standing or a falling Church." In this doctrine is the chief cliirerence 
between Romanism and Protestantism, The divergencies of the two bodies in 
matters pertaining to rituals, sacraments, etc., etc., grow largely out of their 
different views concerning the teachings of the Word of God, concerning 
the gospel way of man's deliverance from sin. This difference is more then a 
difference in form. It reaches down to the very heart and soul of the great plan 
of eternal redemption provided for lost mankind through the blood of the Lord. 
On no point that we have considered, or shall yet consider, should there be more 
earnest and thorough investigation and more careful consideration of the true 
Scripture ground of justification and deliverance, both from the guilt and from 
the pollution and power of sin. 

Rome's Teaching Concerninig Justification 

The sixteenth century was noted for its great discoveries — the discovery 
of the art of printing, the discovery of the western continent, the discovery of 
the Copernican theory of the universe, etc. But greater than all these, in the 
revenue of glory which it brought to God and of blessing to mankind, was 
the rediscovery of God 's way of justifying the sinner. There were devout 
souls here and there who were resting their hopes for life eternal on the perfect 
atonement and righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, but this was in spite of 
Rome 's teaching, not because of it. Martin Luther had been groping his way 
toward the light, but he was still bound by many fetters when he was sent on 
a mission to Rome in the interests of the Augustianian Order to which he be- 
longed. In company with John Mechlen he set out for the Eternal City in 
October, 1510, on a journey which proved to be not only full of interest 
because of the places which they visited but which also proved to be epoch- 
making in his experience and in the history of mankind. They went to Rome, 
full of veneration for it because of its many martyrdoms and because of the 
supposed holiness of the lives of those who ruled the Church, Coming in view 
of the city from the North, Luther fell on his face, and exclaimed, "1 greet 
thee, thou Holy Rome!" He remained in the city one month, visiting all the 
oldest Churches, swallowing wholesale, as he says, all the legends his guide 
repeated, "With special eagerness did he visit the Church called St, John's 
Lateran, where there was then, and still is the so-called Pilate's Stairway, 
marble steps which are reputed to have been brought from Pilate 's judgment 



78 LUTHER'S GREAT DISCOVERY 

hall in which Jesus was tried. An indulgence from penance of nine years 
was promised by Leo IV., for each step that was climbed by the pilgrim on hii 
knees while saying the appointed prayers. If we may trust the story which 
Luther's son, Paul, remembered hearing his father tell, he started climbing 
these stairs and praying, but suddenly remembered the verse in Romans, "The 
just shall live by faith." And rising from his feet he descended the steps, 
to trust no more in pilgrimages and penances for justification and eternal life, 
but upon the perfect righteousness and the completed atonement of th.e Lord 
Jesus Christ. This incident is denied by Roman Catholic writers, and it seems 
to rest upon the testimony of Luth.er 's ' son, Paul Luther. He was eleven 
years old when Ms father told it to him and he wrote it down a number of 
years later. There is nothing in the story out of harmony witli the experience 
through, which Luther was passing at th.at period of his life. Certain it is that 
he did not carry home with him the feeling of veneration with, which, he ap- 
proached the city of Rome. Speaking of his visit he said: '^Rome is a 
harlot. I would not take a thousand gulden not to have seen it for I never 
would have believed the true state of affairs from what other people told me, 
had I not seen it myself. The Italians mocked us for being pious monks, for 
they hold Christians fools. They say six or seven masses in the time it takes 

me to say one, for they take money for it and I do not So great and 

bold is Roman impiety tliat neither God nor man, neither sinner nor saint, is 
feared. All good men who have seen Rome bear witness to this; all bad ones 
come back worse than before." During his slow journey homeward he pon- 
dered Paul's words. At length their full meaning burst upon him. Through the 
Gospel that righteousness is revealed which prevails before God — by which He 
out of grace and mere compassion justifies us through faith. ''Here I felt at 
once, that I was wholly born again and that I had entered through open doors 
into Paradise itself. That passage of Paul was truly to me the gate of Para- 
dise. ' ' 

In the above brief article from the Creed of Pius IV., the Roman con- 
fessor declares his acceptance *'of all and every one of the things which have 
been defined or declared in the Holy Council of Trent concerning original sin 
and justification." In order that we may understand what is included in this 
declaration, we must know what was declared by the Council of Trent. 
This Council, it will be remembered, was held during the years 1543-63, and 
was called to conteract so far as possible, the influence of the Reformation 
movement in the 16th century. As the heart of that Reformation was the 
preaching of the reformed views of justification, the answer of the Council of 
Trent on that subject constituted a very large part of its proceedings.. In 
the sixth session of that Council, beginning January, 13, 1547, thirty-three 
canons were adopted, setting forth Rome's teachings concerning the process, 
the causes, the effects and qualities of justification. In the following selections 
from these canons, the principal Romish doctrines concerning this vital matter 
are set forth: 

''If any person deny that the guilt of original sin is remitted by the grace 
of our Lord Jesus Christ which is confeirM in baptism, or even asserts that 



DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 79 

the whole of that which hath the true and proper nature of sin is not taken 
away; but says that it is only razed, or not imputed; let him be accursed. — 
But this Holy Synod confesses and thinks, that concupiscence, or lust remains 
in the baptized. This concupiscence, w^hich sometimes the apostle calls sin, the 
Holy Synod declare that the Catholic Church never understood to be called 
sin, because there is truly and properly sin in the regenerate, but because it 
arises out of sin and leads to sin. But if any one shall think the contrary, — 
let him be accursed." 

''If any one shall say that the ungodly man is justified by faith only so 
as to understand that nothing else is required that may co-operate to obtain 
the grace of justification, and that it is in no wise necessary for him to be 
prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will — let him be accursed." 

''If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence 
in the Divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake; or that it is that con- 
fidence alone by which we are justified, — let him be accursed. ' ' 

"If any one shall say, that he who is once justified cannot sin, nor lose 
grace, — let him be accursed. ' ' 

"If any one shall say, that justification is not preserved and also 
increased before God by good works; but that these works are only the fruits 
and marks of justification obtained, and not the cause of increasing the same, — 
let him be accursed." 

"If any one shall say, that the good works of a justified man are the 
gifts of God, in such a sense as not also to be the good merits of the justified 
man himself, or that the justified man, by the good which is done by him 
through the grace of God, and the merits of Jesus Christ, of whom he is a living- 
member, does not truly deserve increase of grace, eternal life, and the obtaining 
of eternal life itself, provided he shall die in a state of grace, and even an 
increase of glory, — let him be accursed. ' ' 

In reference to these official declarations of the belief of the Church 06 
Rome on this vital matter, let it be observed, 

1. Justification, regeneration and sanctification are all confused and con- 
founded in these definitions. There is no clear distinction between the work 
of Christ for as and the work of the Holy Spirit within us. According to 
the Romish definition, justification is not an act, but a progressive work. 
"If any one shall say, that justification received is not preserved and also 
INCREASED before God by works — ^let him be accursed. ' ' While in a gen- 
eral w^ay the merits of Christ and His atonement are made the ground of 
justification, yet it is made to rest particularly, and largely, upon the good 
works of the justified one. 

2. According to the Romish teachings, the proper instrumentality in 
the reception of justification is baptism. It is conferred upon infants at 
their baptism and only the baptized can become partakers of it. 

3. Justification, according to the Roman theory, consists chiefly in 
the putting away of original sin with its guilt and pollution. It does not 
convey a righteousness which becomes a title to everlasting life, but simply 
counteracts or overcomes the liabilities which we share in Adam's trans 
gression. 



80 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION 

4. The degree of justification may be increased from time to time, 
or it may be wholly lost through sins committed. 

5. When so lost by means of mortal sin it can be restored only through 
the observance of the sacram,erit of penance. This, as we have seen in a 
previous study, requires a full and dutiful confession of the sins committed 
to the priest and a submission to such pains and penalties as he may pre- 
scribe; it requires that the sinner must receive priestly absolution, and back 
of this it is necessary that the intention of the priest be right, or there can 
be no validity in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Rome 
teaches that justification may not only be restored thus through the sacra- 
ment of penance, but that it can be subsequently increased by good works 
and will be completed in purgatory. 

7. Among the Romans sins are divided into . venial and mortal. Venial 
sins- may be atoned for by good works of various kinds. If a venial sin 
remains unsatisfied at the time of death, the sinner who dies in grace must 
atone for it in purgatory. 

Thus it will be seen that not only is there a confusion of the different 
acts and works of the Holy Spirit in Rome 's definition of justification, but 
there is also a great confusion as to the ground upon which it rests and as 
to the means by which it may be obtained. The sinner becomes the par- 
taker of the justified state, chiefly through ritual observances, first of bap- 
tism, and then, in case justification is lost, of its restoration through the 
sacrament called penance, for which there is no ground or warrant in the 
Scriptures. The ground of justification also is made to rest particularly upon 
the merits of Jesus Christ, upon the merit residing in the observance of sac- 
raments, upon the good intention of the priest administering those rites, on 
the penances performed by the penitent, upon the good works performed by 
him, and finally upon the satisfaction that shall be rendered in the fires of 
purgatory. In view of these many uncertain elements which attend this 
vital matter, who would ever be able to say according to this theory of 
justification, ''Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is 
God that justifies; who is he that condemneth?" 

Works of Supererogation 

Rome also teaches in this connection the doctrine of the works of super- 
erogation. Rome not only teaches that the works of saints are meritorious, 
but in some instances that they are super-abundant, so that some may help 
to create a fund of merit which may be transferred to others who could 
share all the requirements. This doctrine is particularly set forth in con- 
nection with Rome's teachings on the subject of indulgences, which will 
be considered under a separate article of the Tridentine Creed. It may be 
well, however, to present in this connection the followiag passage from a 
work on Indulgences granted by Sovereign Pontiffs, published in Dublin, 
1845, page 5: 

''Sin produces two bitter fruits in the i80ul,=--the guilt which deprives 
us of the grace and friendship of God; aiid the punishment whieh is due to 
jt from His justice. This pvimsteient is of two klnjlg, — the one eternal, and 



ROME'S 80 CALLED ''CELESTIAL TREASURES" SI 

the other temporti]. The guilt of sin. and the eternal punishment due to 
mortal sin, are remitted, through the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, in the 
Holy Sacrament of Penance, provided we approach it with proper dispo- 
sitions, or by perfect contrition, which should include a desire of confes- 
sion; but all the temporal punishment is not generally forgiven in this sacra- 
ment. A portion of this punishment commonly remains to be ntoned for 
in this life by good works, by penitential practices, and by indulgences; 
otherwise we shall suffer in the fire of purgatory, according to the satisfac- 
tion required by God's infinite justice. The motives of this atonement are 
to keep us on our guard not to fall again into sin by the facility of pardon, 
and to cooperate by our penitential endeavors with the satisfactions and 
sufferings of Christ. If we suffer with Christ, we may be also glorified with 
Him (Rom. 8:17). 

' ' An indulgence is, therefore, the remission of the temporal punishment, 
which generally remains due to sins, already forgiven in the Sacrament of 
Penance as to the guilt and eternal punishment. This remis.sion is made 
by the application of the merits and satisfactions, which are coutained in the 
treasures of the Church. These treasures are the accumulation of the spirit- 
ual goods, arising from the infinite merits and satisfactions of Jesus Christ, 
with the superabundant merits and satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
of the holy martyrs, and of the other saints, which ultimately derive their 
efficacy from the merits and satisfactions of Christ, who is the onlv Mediator 
of redemption. These Celestial Treasures, as they are called by the Council 
of Trent, are committed by the Divine bounty to the dispensation of the 
Church, the sacred spouse of Jesus Christ, and are the ground and matter 
of indulgences. They are infinite in regard to the merits of Christ, and 
cannot therefore be ever exhausted." 

In the above deliverance, it is declared that remission is made by the 
application of the merits and satisfactions which are contained in the trea- 
sures of the Church. These treasures are the accumulation of the spiritual 
goods, arising from the infinite merits and satisfactions of Jesus Christ, 
with the superabundant merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the holy 
martyrs and of the other saints, etc. ''Which Celestial Treasures are com- 
mitted to the dispensation of the Church." According to these teachings 
God has placed in the hands of the Roman pontiffs and priests the disposal 
and distribution of the fund of merit resulting from the atonement of Jesus 
Christ, the virtuous life of the Holy Virgin and the meritorious lives of 
other saints. Without the good will and gracious disposition of these minis- 
ters of the Roman hierarchy, no soul can ever become partaker of justifica- 
tion, no matter what the attitude or exercise of the soul within may be. 
Instead of being an act of God's free grace, whereby the sinner is pardoned 
and accepted as righteous in God's sight, justification consists i?i obtaining 
first of all the favor and good will of these human mediators through a 
strict compliance with their teachings and requirements. 

Justification from the Protestant Viewpoint 
Having considered the leading points of the doctrine of justification as 
taught by the Church of Pome, having seen how it makes the ground of 



82 ''WHAT IS JUSTIFICATION r' 

ju&tification a composite basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, the mer- 
its of the Virgin Mary and other saints, the meritorious deeds and sacrifices of 
the penitent, complete finally through the sufferings of purgatorial fires, we 
have seen that the instrumental agency in entering into the justified state 
is the sacrament of baptism, followed and supplemented by the sacrament of 
penance. We have seen the continual uncerUinty iiT which the devout 
Catholic must rest as to whether he is in a justified state or not and whether 
this state is to be continued or lost,, his security being dependent not only 
upon his own steadfast endurance, but also on the question as to whether 
the priest who administered baptism and pen- nee was governed by the right 
intention, etc. Let us now turn to the consideration )f this same subject 
as set forth in the Westminster Shorter Catechism in its brief but compre- 
hensive answer to the question: 

''What is Justification? 

"Justification is an act of God's free grace whereiji He pardoneth all 
our sins and accepteth us as righteous in His sight only for the righteousness 
of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. ' ' 

In distinction from the foregoing definitions and expositions this brief 
answer teaches: 

1. That justification is an act, completed at once. In' this it should 
be distinguished from sanctification, which is a continuous work of grace 
from the moment of the believer 's acceptance of Christ and his regeneration 
by the Holy Spirit^ until he is made perfect in holiness at the time of his 
departure into glory. It is an act by which God blots out the transgressions 
of him who believes and accepts him as righteous in the Beloved. Justifi- 
cation is a judicial act by which the sinner passes from a state of condemna- 
tion into a state in which he is declared and accepted by the Father as 
righteous in His sight. It is as distinctly an act as when the governor 
of a state declares the man who has hitherto been held as a criminal free 
Prom all liability to suffer further the penalties imposed upon him. The 
term "justify" is not used in the Scriptures in the sense of making holy, 
but of declaring, considering and treating one as if he were righteous. 

2. Justification is an act of God 's free grace. It is wholly undeserved 
by the sinner and is bestowed upon him entirely as God 's free and gracious 
gift. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. " "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy trans- 
gressions for My own sake; and I will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 43:25). 
■'I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions and as a cloud thy 
sins; return unto Me; for I have redeemed thee" (Isa. 44:22). 

X In justification there is both a free and full pardon of sin and an 
acceptance as righteous in Go'd's sight. (1) The gracious pardon of sin. 
In addition to the texts just quoted, in which God declares that He puts 
away all sins of those who return unto Him, consider also these Scriptures: 
"I will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea" (Micah 7:19). "As far 
IS the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from 
us"' (Ps. 198:12). "If we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to 



"IN CHRIST COMPLETE" s.-i 

forgive lis our sius and to cleanse us from all uurighteousness " (1 John 
1:9). (2) The justified one is also accepted as righteous in (4od's sight. 
Not only is the guilt of all sin, both original ;iud actu'dl, put -i-sNay, bur 
God accepts the person of the believer as righteous in His sight, giving him 
a title to eternal life and glory. **The righteousness of God, Avhich is bv 
faith of Jesus Christ, is unto all, and upon all, them that believe" (Romans 
3:22). "Surely shall one saj', In the Lord have I righteousness and strength'' 
(Isa. 45:24). "This is the name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD 
OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS'' (Jere. 23:6). "David also describeth the blessed- 
ness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works ' ' 
(Romans 4:3). When God justifies the sinner. He puts aAvaj^ not only the 
guilt of original sin, but also all actual transgressions; He also imputes to 
him or reckons as belonging to him the complete and perfect righteousness ot 
the Lord Jesus Christ, which becomes the ground of his justification. The 
sinner is not left to create for himself, by his own imperfect obedience, « 
fund of merit on which to depend for acceptance with God, and for an en- 
trance unto everlasting glory. When Paul Avas writing to Philemon he said 
concerning the converted runaway slave, "If he hath wronged thee or oweth 
thee aught, put that on my account; I, Paul, have written it with my own 
hand, I will repay it" (Philemon 18:19). The believer's justification in- 
cludes both the pardon of sin and an acceptance as righteous in the sight 
of God. 

4. The believer's justification in Christ is complete. Rome teaches 
that the justification of the sinner is "increased before God by good works.'" 
We believe that the justification that is conferred upon us in Christ Jesus 
is complete from the moment of its acceptance. It is true that all have 
sinned and have come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23); that "there 
is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10): that "the wages of sin is 
death" (Rom. 6:25). But w^e believe also that the moment a sinner accepts 
Jesus Christ as his Saviour, he becomes partaker of a complete pardon of 
sin and the possessor of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ; "Ye are 
complete in Him" (Col. 2:10). "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus who was 
made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemp- 
tion" (1 Cor. 1:30). Jesus cried upon the cross, "It is finished" (John 
19:30). It is declared also that "by one offering He has forever perfected 
them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). "He that believeth on Him is 
not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already" (John 
3:18). "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John 3:36). 
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth My word and believeth 
on Him that sent M^, hath everlasting life, and shall not come unto condemna- 
tion, but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). "There is there- 
fore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). 
"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth" 
(Rom. 10:4). These are a few of the many Scriptures which teach that 
the justification of the believer is complete from the moment of his accept- 
ance of IlJm as his Lord and Saviour. 

5. The justification of the believer is everlasting. It was foretold of 



84 THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION 

our Lord by 1iie prophet Daniel, ^'He shall bring m an everlasting? right- 
eousness'" (Daniel l-:24). ''Trust ye in the Lord forever, ior in the Lord 
Jehovah is e\ erlaf-tii)g strength" (Isa. 26:4). Our Lord Jesus says, "I 
give unto tliem crori^al life; and they shall never perisli, neither shall any 
man pluck ihem out of My hand" (John 10:28). Paul teaches this same 
truth Avhen he .-ays: "If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God 
by the death of Hi;: Son, much more being reconciled we shtill be s:<.ved 
by His life" (Kom. 5:10). 

6. The justification of the believer depends in no degree upon the merits 
of his own good works. The best Avorks, even of the regenerated life, a"e 
not in the slightest degree meritorious; they do not merit the pardon of sin 
nor do they constitute him who renders them righteous before God. ''We 
are all as an unclean thing and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags: 
and we all do fade as a leaf and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away ' ' 
(Xsa. 64:6). "If Thou shoujdst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? 
But there is forgiveness with Thee that Thou mayest be feared" (Psalm 
130:3,4). "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight 
shall no man living be justified" (Psalm 143:2), Jacob declared that he 
was not worthy of the least of all God's mercies (Gen. 32:30). Job declared 
that since he had come to see God with his own eye, he abhorred himself 
and repented in dust and ashes (Job. 42:6). David said, "I acknowledge 
my transgression, and my sin is ever before me" (Psalm 51:3). Paul 
counted himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). The beloved disciple John 
wrote, "If we say we have no sin, w^e deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8). 

7. The instrumental agency in the receiving of the justification is not 
baptism, not penance, not purgatory, but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house" 
(Acts 16:31.) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without 
deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28.) "Therefore being justified by faith, we have 
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:11). "For by 
grace are ye saved through faith,' and that not of yourselves; it is the gift 
of God. Not of works lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8). 

8. Works are the fruits of justification. Good works are the evidence 
and fruits of salvation, not in any wise the cause.- "By their fruits ye shall 
know^ them" (Matt. 7:20). "Who has saved us and called us with an holy 
calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and 
grace, which was given in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim. 
1:9). 

The very need of justification implies the state of condemnation in which 
all are who have not accepted Jesus Christ and His righteousness. "There 
is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus." This 
implies that all who are not in Him by a true, vital faith are in a state of 
condemnation. And the degree of our guilt or condemnation will depend 
upon the measure of light and privileges which we enjoy. To the cities of 
Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, Jesus said, "It shall be more tolerable 
for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for you. ' ' Privileges 
neglected or rejected bring with them added condemnation. How eager every 



THE RECEIVING HAND 8;! 

Oiie should be to ho l>rought into n tv\u\ savii>o relation to the Lord Jesus 
Christ! What will it avail for any one to be faraiiliar with the evangelical 
doctrine of justification if we do not become possessors of that eternal life 
which God has offered as His free gift in Christ Jesus? 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

With what other gracious acts do Romish dogmas confuse justification? 

Through what rite or ceremony is the sinner brought into the justified 
state? 

Through what so-called sacrament may it be restored if lost? 

Upon whose right intention does this restoration depend? 

How may the degree of justification be increased? 

If venial sins remain at death, where must justification be finally com- 
pleted? 

On what grounds, therefore, is justification based according to Rome's 
teaching? 

Can the subject of it ever be sure of its possession? 

What are works of supererogation? 

According to Rome's tenets, who alone have power to dispence of the 
fund of merit that has been accumulated through the ages? 

Upon whose will would all mankind be thus dependent for the pardon 
of sin and for admission into glory? 

On what composite basis does Rome rest the justification of the be- 
liever? 

By what instrumental agencies does Rome make the sinner partake of 
justification? 

According to the Shorter Catechism, what is justification? 

Wliy is justification called an act? 

Why is it called an act of God's free grace? 

What two benefits are conferred upon the believer in the act of justifi- 
cation? 

Give Scriptures also which show that in the act of justification the 
believer is accepted and counted as righteous in the sight of God. 

Is there any increase in the degree of the believer 's justification after 
the time of his first acceptance of Christ? 

How long does the state of justification continue? 

Does its acceptance rest in any degree upon his own works of even 
a regenerated child of God? 

On what alone does the justification of the believer rest or depend as its 
ground? 

What is the instrumental agency by which justification is received? 

What is the relation of good works to the justifie'd state of the believer 
if they do not in any way constitute the ground or basis of his acceptance? 



THE ACCOMPANIMENTS OF JUSTIFICATION 



LESSON Xlll 



RELATION OF JUSTIFICATION TO REGENERATION, ADOP 
TION AND SANCTIFICATION 



One chief cause of confusion in tlie Roman Catholic views of justification 
is the fact that by them it is confounded with regeneration and sanctification. 
Justification denotes the change of state into which the believer is brought 
at his acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. At that moment 
he ceases to be a criminal at the bar of justice under sentence of eternal 
condemnation and is introduced as a child into the family of God. In that 
moment he is translated from the kingdom of Satan into the Kingdom of 
God's dear Son (Col. 1:13). Before His acceptance of Christ, he stood 
as a criminal at the bar, but from that moment he enters upon the privileges 
of the sons of God. This, however, determines only his state or standing 
before God; it does not provide for his change of disposition or personal 
character. His being forgiven and accepted as righteous is not the result 
of a new heart and life, but rests wholly and solely upon the atoning blood 
and perfect righteousness and obedience of the Son of God. Justification 
sets forth what Jesus does for us, having suffered in our room and stead, 
and the new state or standing into which the believer is introduced by virtus 
of His atonement and righteoifsness. But it must always be remembered 
that justification is only one of the many benefits of which they *'who 
are effectually called do partake." We must not overlook adoption and sanc- 
tification, with the many benefits which do either accompany or flow from 
them. While justification is inseparably linked to that radical change of 
heart and life which is designated as regeneration, or the new birth, it is 
just as emphatically true that justification and sanctification are inseparably 
linked together. Sanctification will as certainly follow justification as the 
day follows the night. It is impossible that any one who is brought into 
the justified state through faith in the righteousness and atonement of the 
Lord Jesus Christ retain his old sinful nature and disposition or be content 
to live the old selfish, sinful life. 

The Church of Rome teaches that ''justification is not remission of sins 
merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man." (Coun- 
cil of Trent, Session 6, chap. 7,16). Protestants follow the definite teachings 
of the New Testament in which justification refers to the ground of the 
sinner's acceptance with God, the meritorious liffe and sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ, and sanctification to the gradual growth of the Christian character 
in its conformity to the mind and pattern of the perfect man Christ Jesus, 
by the continual operation of the Holy Spirit and use of the means of grace. 
The Church of England states that ''we are accounted righteous before 
God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and 
not for our own works or deservings, " adding also, "that good works are 



"FAITH ONLY, NOT BY FAITH ALONE" S7 

the fruits of faith and follow after justification and that they 

spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them 
a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit" 
(Articles 11 and 12). 

This view of justification is the keynote of Paul's teaching. ''By the 
works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight" (Kom. 3:20). 
"We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works 
of the law" (Rom. 3:28). By God's gracious appointment, the Incarnate 
Son "Who knew no sin, God made to be sin on our behalf that we might 
become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). 

Rome 's confusion of justification with sanctification is a result of a fear or 
suspicion of the possible perversions of the doctrine of justification by faith 
only. Such objections and suspicions were brought forward in early days, and 
they, were answered by the Apostle Paul. His answer was, ' ' Shall we continue 
in sin that grace may abound? Shall we sin because we are not under the 
law but under grace?" (Rom. 6:1-15.) To these questions he indignantly re- 
plied, "God forbid I How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer there- 
in?" Some so violently resisted this teaching and perverted it, that Paul 
tells us the apostles were "slandered, and some affirmed that they said,. Let us 
do evil that there may come good" (Rom. 3:8.) 

"Justification arises from that conviction of sin and of guilt which is the 
first work of God's Holy Spirit upon the conscience, producing repentance and 
a change of heart. This by itself would lead to despair, but it is accompanied 
by the revelation of Jesus Christ, of His righteousness, and of the sufficiency of 
His stupendous sacrifice as an offering for sin. This the convicted embraces, 
appropriates by faith and is justified. Thus it is evident that faith is not 
the trust or persuasion of one at ease or careless about sin, but of one who, 
feeling himself condemned by God's righteous law, believes the testimony of 
God's Word with regard to its remedy through the person and work of Christ 
Jesus. How can such an one, "baptized into Christ's death," united to Christ 
as the branch is to the vine, continue to live wilfully in sin? Impossible. Thus 
constantly progressive assimilation to the mind and life of the Lord Jesus, 
is inseparable from justification. 'God accounts men righteous for the sake of 
Christ's righteousness; but He at the same time works in them eternal 
righteousness which comes from their union with Christ and indwelling of His 
Spirit. Henceforth men see their good works and glorify God" (Matt. 5:16.) 

By Faith Only, Not By Faith Alone. These words are often misquoted, 
because misunderstood. Calvin used to say, "We are justified by faith alone, 
but not by that faith which is alone, ' ' i. e., the faith that justifies is alone as to 
the ground of our acceptance with God, but not alone as regards the gracious 
consequences of a "righteous, sober, and godly life" (Titus 2:12). Luther was 
equally clear on this point. With him the faith that justifies was a faith that 
believed all the promises and precepts of the Divine Word. Thus he wrote, 
"We know indeed that faith is never alone, but brings charity with it and 
other manifold gifts. For he who believes in God, that He favors us and gave 
His Son, and with His Son eternal life, how should he not love God Avith ail 
his heart? How should he not reverence Him? How would he not prove his 



88 TEACHINGS OF THE FATHEES 

obedience to God by enduring adversity? So faith draws with it a most beau- 
tiful chorus of virtues; nor is it ever alone. But things are not therefore to 
be confounded, and that which is of faith to be attributed to other virtues. ' ' 

' ' Justification by faith, so far from being likely to diminish the graces and 
good works of a Christian's life, is most calculated to inspire and multiply 
them. The soul that is burdened with a sense of uncertainty as to its salvation, 
which is ever turning to confessions and penances, to priests and saints, may 
work from fear, but the spirit of a slave never yields the bright, cheerful, and 
prompt obedience which springs from reconciliation and sonship. There is a 
rest, a joyousness, a gratitude, a perpetual sense of the presence and love of 
God which stimulates the soul conscious of reconciliation and atonement to 
higher things. The words of Christ are realized, *I call you not servants, but 
friends;' or, as Paul puts it, 'Ye have not received the spirit of bondage 
again to fear, but the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. ' ' The 
love of Christ constraineth us.' Justification is the only source of power for 
sanctification. 

The Teaching of the Fathers 

''The controversies of the Early Church related more to the person of 
Christ than to the doctrines of grace, so that the Fathers were accustomed to 
speak generally of our salvation as due to the meritorious death of Christ with- 
out those distinctions which arose in aftertime. The following quotations, 
however, will show that they were in fundamental agreement with the Scrip- 
tural views recovered at the Eeformation. It is remarkable — and Romanism 
would do well to observe it — that Clement, one of the first bishops of Rome, 
writes clearly on the subject. Speaking of faithful men of old, he says: 
* They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or 
their own works, or the righteous doing which they wrought, but througQ 
His. And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not 
justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom, or understanding, or 
piety, or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, 
whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the begin- 
ning; to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.' St. Chysostom has 
left a striking passage — (on Rom. 8:34), 'It is God that justifieth, who is he 
that condemneth?' — 'He does not say, it is God who forgave us our sins, but 
what is much greater — It is God that justifieth. For when the judge 's sentence 
declares us just, and such a judge too, what signifieth the accuser?' Also St. 
Basil: 'This is perfect and complete joy in God, when one is not lifted up in 
the conceit of his own righteousness, but knows that he himself is wanting 
in true righteousness, and that he is justified only by faith in Christ.' St. 
Bernard: 'Thou art as strong to justify as Thou art ready to pardon. Where- 
fore whosoever, smitten with compunction for his sins, hungers and thirsts 
after righteousness, let him believe .on Thee who justifiest the ungodly; and 
being justified by faith alone, he will have peace with God. ' This is surely 
the teaching of the Reformers." (Modern Romanism Examined, Dearden, pp 



MERIT AND SUPEREROGATION «0 

Works of Merit and Supererogation 

"Q._What is Rome's teaching as to Merit and Works of Supererogation, 
and how are they connected with the doctrine of justification? 

"A. — To those who have probed their own hearts and meditated upon sin 
by the light of God's countenance (Ps. 90:8,) the word 'merit' has a strange 
sound. Yet, as regards merit, the Church of Rome teaches that man, if already 
justified, 'through such good works as he does by the grace of God and merit 
of Christ, whose living member he is, truly merits increase of grace, eternal 
life, and the actual attainment of eternal life, if he dies in grace" (Council 
of Trent, Sess. 6, can. 32.) In direct contrast with this, St. Paul tells us that, 
"the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6: 
23;) whereas, 'To him that worketh the reward is not reckoned as of grace, 
but as of debt' (Rom. 4:4). When a blessing is a free gift, there can be no 
room for merit; it must be free of unmerited favor, as the word "grace" 
implies. 

"Those Romanists who write for English readers are very cautious and 
reserved upon these points. 'Christ puts us into a condition to merit greater 
degrees of glory, ' says Keenan, while Di Bruno carefully omits all reference 
to works of supererogation, and writes: ' All our merits are grounded upon the 
merits of Christ, yet to the justified they are truly our own merits. ' In all 
such statements there is a tendency to flatter the sinner and to minimize 
the guilt of his sin, and in equal proportion, to depreciate the unique love and 
the sole merit of the Son of God. Well do Protestants affirm that, whilst the 
good works of the justified are well-pleasing to God, yet they cannot put away 
our sins and endure the strictness (severitatem) of God's judgment' (Art. 12.) 
The Psalmist cried out, 'If Thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities. Lord, who shall 
stand?' (Ps. 129:3, D.). Our confidence is not in our merit, but in God's 
compassion, ' for with Thee there is merciful forgiveness. ' St. Paul describes 
the conflict which more or less goes on in every soul: 'When I have a will to 
do good, evil is present with me' (Rom. 7:21, D.) Self-examination soon brings 
to light defect of motive or of consistency. The more saintly a man is, and 
the more enlightened his conscience, the more does he grow in humility and 
self-condemnation. The humblest words came from the greatest of apostles in 
his old age, in the prospect of martyrdom, in the near vision of the crown of 
righteousness: 'This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that 
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners^ of whom I am CHIEF.' The 
Roman doctrine of merit, or of condignity, is thus contrary to the experience 
of saints and to the word of God. The Fathers sometimes use the word 
'merit,' but only in the sense 'to procure or to attain' (Ussher.) Their witness 
is as decided as that of Protestants. St. Jerome says, 'If we consider our own 
raerits,_we must despair.' St, Anselm: 'If a man should serve God a thousand 
years, he would not deserve, of condignity, to be half a day in the kingdom 
of heaven.' Saints in those days had a deeper sense of the sinfulness of sin 
than is now taught by Rome. 

"Works of Supererogation. The word 'supererogation' signifies 'paying 
more than is demanded. ' It is applied to those works of saints which are done 
voluntarily, and which are supposed to be over and above the requirements 



00 SO-CALLED "COUNSELS OF PEEFECTION'' 

of God's commandments. The word itself does not appear in the Tridentine 
decrees, but what it implies is abundantly taught in her doctrine of indulgence 
— a doctrine which assumes that the Pope has at his disposal a 'treasury of 
grace,' consisting partly of the merits of Christ and partly of those merits 
of saints which are more than they needed for their own salvation. After 
the passages already given on the subject of merit, it may be well concluded 
that the docrtine of 'works of supererogation cannot be taught without arrog- 
ency and impiety.' Does the Lord's prayer ever become obsolete? Are any 
members of the Roman Church freed from the necessity of praying, 'Forgive 
us our debts as we forgive our debtors"? Will any one affirm — does any one 
taught by God's Holy Spirit feel, that he is keeping the ten commandments 
perfectly in their deep and spiritual signification, as taught by our Saviour in 
His sermon on the mount? Did St. John write falsely, 'If we say that we have 
no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?' Whence, then, 
comes an obedience beyond what God requires, beyond what is His due? The 
attempt is made to distinguish between positive precepts and COUNSELS OF 
PERFECTION, as if the former were necessary, but not the latter. The virtues 
of poverty and chastity are reckoned among the counsels of perfection. These 
have their place from time to time in the Christian life, but to those who feel 
called to such states of life, these (so-called) counsels of perfection become 
positive commands, and must be obeyed as such. The recommendations by 
Paul respecting marriage were mainly due to what he regarded as 'the present 
distress, ' i. e. the persecutions which then beset the Church, and they may well 
apply in the present day to missionaries going to difficult and dangerous 
missions. But in any case, to suppose that there is a fixed measure of obedience 
beyond which it is not necessary to go, is 'impiety,' since the perfection of 
God is the standard, and no one will dare to say that he has attained to our 
Lord's direction to be 'holy as God is holy.' Again, to imagine that we do 
more than we are bound to do is ' arrogance, ' because ourselves — body, soul, 
and spirit — are entirely God's so that we owe ourselves and all that we have 
to His service. There ALL is thus owing, it is impossible that part can be 
overpay. Christ saith plainly, 'When you shall have done all the things that 
are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants' (Luke 17:10 D.) If 
'unprofitable,' how can there be excess?" (Modern Romanism Examined: by 
Rev. H. W. Dearden.) 

Rome's Objections To the Protestant View 

The writer in "The Catholic Encyclopedia" says; "The ideas on which 
the Reformers built their system of justification, except perhaps, fiduciary 
faith, were by no means really original. They had been conceived long before 
either by heretics of the early centuries or by isolated Catholic theologians and 
had been quietly scattered as the seed of future heresies. It was especially 
the representive of Anti-Nomianism during the apostolic times who welcomed 
the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that consequently the 
observance of the moral law is not necessary either as a prerequisite for ob 
taining justification or as a means for preserving it." "Neither penance nor 
repentance, neither love of God nor good works, nor any other virtue is re- 
quired, though in the just they may either attend or follow as a result of 



THE FAITH THAT SAVES 91 

justification.'' ''By this doctrine, Luther opened a fundamental breach be- 
tween religion and morality, between faith and law, and assigned to each its 
own distinct field of action in which each can obtain its end independent of 
the other/' 

The evident purpose of the entire discussion of this subject in the article 
is to show that the doctrine of justification on the ground of Christ's 
righteousness alone tends to produce lawlessness and immorality in the life. 
Rome's claim is that since according to her teachings justification depends in 
part upon the merit of Jesus Christ and partly upon the merit of the sinner's 
own good works, there is always the greater stimulus to obey the law of God. 
If the Protestant doctrine of justification overlooked the necessity of regener- 
ation and sanctification as inseparable accompaniments of justification, there 
might be some ground for the objections raised by the Church of Rome. It 
must also be remembered that the teaching of Protestantism in reference to 
the faith that justifies, that it is a faith which "works by love" (Gal. 5:6,) 
"purifies the heart" Acts 15:2.) "overcomes the world" (1 John 5:4.) We 
must remember the teachings of the apostle James in reference to the kind of 
faith that justifies and saves. "Faith, if it have not works, is dead" (Jas. 
2:17.) We must remember the teaching exercised by Oalvin and other reform- 
ers that "it is faith alone that saves, but not the faith that is alone." The 
faith that saves is always accompanied by love, joy, etc. Protestantism teach- 
es as strongly as Romanism that good works are necessary — not in order to 
justification, but because we have been justified. God did not give the ten 
commandments to His people before their redemption from Egypt, promising 
that if they kept these commandments. He would deliver them from bondage; 
He gave His law after He had brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of 
the house of bondage, as much as to say, "I give you this law from heaven, 
not that you may be redeemed from bondage by keeping it, but because you 
have been redeemed by My mighty and gracious power. ' ' Good works are 
essential to salvation, according to evangelical teaching, in as much as salva- 
tion from sin is the essential part of the redemption that is offered in Christ 
Jesus. Those who are justified on the ground of Christ's righteousness are 
saved "unto good works". A new and mightier motive is implanted in 
the heart of every one who truly accepts the Lord Jesus Christ, the mightiest 
motive known to God, "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love 
one another." Romanists attempt to make out that Luther and other Re- 
formers encouraged the spirit of Godlessness and lawlessness in the lives 
of those who accepted their teachings. Luther taught that the faith that 
justifies receives and obeys the precepts of the divine word. Quoting again 
his words that were presented in last lesson? "We know indeed that faith 
is never alone, but brings charity with it and other manifold gifts. For he 
who believes in God that He favours us and gave His Son, and with His 
Son eternal life, how should he not love God with all his heart? How 
should he not reverence Him? How should he not prove His obedience to 
God by enduring adversity? So faith draws with it a most beautiful chorus 
of virtues: nor is it ever alone. But things are not therefore to be con- 
founded, and that which is of faith to be attributed to other virtues." 



92 JUSTIFICATION GOD'S FREE GIFT 

Let us settle it in our hearts that while good works are uot the ground 
on which the believer is justified, they are the' certain fruits and evidences 
of it. The faith that saves is the faith that ''purifies the heart," ''works 
by love, ' ' and ' ' overcomes the world. ' ' The Fifth of Eomans begins by 
setting forth the believer's justification by faith. It tells almost directly 
of that love which is shed abroad in the heat by the Holy Ghost given unto 
us, which awakens and sustains the "hope that maketh not ashamed." 
Justification is always accompanied and followed by such a flooding of the 
heart with love. Romans 8 begins with the assurance that in Christ there 
is no condemnation and closes with the declaration of "no separation from 
the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. ' ' Paul also declares, 
"With the heart man believeth unto righteousness" — not with the head. 
If the heart be not m^oved with love for God because of His unspeakable 
gift, that gift has not been received. Because such a gift cannot leave the 
heart in a state of deadness and coldness toward God. The question which 
every one should be able to answer is that proposed by our Lord, "Lovest 
thou Mef" 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What does Rome mean by work of Supererogation? 

Do the Scriptures anywhere teach that the righteousness of any mere 
creature is more than sufficient for himself? 

What does the daily use of the Lord's prayer imply as to our need 
of forgiveness? 

(What are some of the objections of Romanists to the Protestant theory 
of justification? 

What do they say they tend to produce in the life? . 
' In raising these objections, what other gracious works of the Holy 
Spirit do they overlook? 

What other graces necessarily accompany faith? 

According to Peter, Paul and John, what are three leading character- 
istics of the faith that saves? 

If good works are not necessary as any part of the ground of justifi- 
cation, for what are they necessary? 

When were the ten commandments given to the people of Israel — before 
or after their delia^erance from bondage? 

What is the great reason presented in the preface to the ten command- 
T^onts for obeying them? 



A MUTILATED SACRAMENT 93 



LESSON XIV 
THE MUTILATED SACRAMENT— COMMUNION IN ONE KIND 



Article Five, Creed of Pius IV. Section 3 
"I also confess that under either kind alone, Christ is received whole and 
entire, and a true sacrament." 



When God gave His word to Moses He said also, ''What thing soever I 
command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from 
it" (Deut. 12:32.) And our Lord says: ''I testify unto every man that heareth 
the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God 
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if 
any man shall take away from the words of the book of this 
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life " (Rev. 
22:18,-19). Rome is guilty of adding sacraments to those which the Lord 
Himself instituted, and of adding unwarranted features to those which He 
did certainly ordain. She likewise is guilty of taking away from the com- 
mandments of our Lord, and among other things in the sacred ordinance 
of the Lord 's Supper. This is glaringly true in the matter of the withholding 
of the cup from the laity, and even from the priests except when they are 
administering the sacrament. Our Lord said plainly, ' * Take, eat ' ', and also 
"Drink ye", bat Rome says to the great body of her communicants, " Yc 
shall not drink". Our Lord says, ''Let a man" — not priests — "let a man 
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup ' '. 
Rome says to all except to the priests who administer, "Ye shall not drink 
of that cup". Rome claims that John sixth chapter treats of the Lord's 
Supper. And in John 6:53 Jesus says, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. ' ' Plainly this chapter 
refers to the spiritual appropriation of Jesus Christ as the life and susten- 
ance of the soul, but if it refers to the sacrament at all, this verse teaches, 
if it teaches any thing on that subject, that to drink the blood of the Son 
of man is as essential as to eat His flesh. Rome offers to her millions of 
communicants a mutilated sacrament. 

Borne Inconsistent with Herself 

Cardinal Gibbons says, "Our Saviour gave communion under both forms 
of bread and wine to His apostles at the last supper. Officiating bishops 
and priests are always required, except on Good Friday, to communicate under 
both kinds. But even the clergy of every rank, including the Pope, receive 
only of the consecrated bread, unless when they celebrate Mass. The Church 
teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each species; so that 
whoever communicates under the form of the bread or of wine receives not 
a mutilated sacrament or a divided Saviour, but shares in the whole sacra- 
ment as fully as if he participated in both forms. Hence the layman who 



94 THE PEACTICE OF THE EAELY CHURCH 

receives the consecrated bread partakes as copiously of tke body and blood 
of Christ as the officiating priest who receives both consecrated elements." 
(Faith in our Fathers, page 289.) 

Cardinal Gibbons further says, ' ' Public communion was usually admin- 
istered in the iirst ages under both forms. The faithful, however, had the 
privilege of dispensing with the cup and partaking only of the bread until 
the time of Pope Gelasius, in the fifth century, when this general, but hitherto 
optional, practice of receiving under both kinds was enforced as a law... 
This law continued in force for several ages, but toward the thirteenth 
century, for various reasons had gradually grown into disuse, with the tacit 
approval of the Church. The Council of Constance, which convened in 1415, 
established a law requiring the faithful to communicate under the form of 
bread only". (Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 293, 294.) 

Many other Roman authorities might be cited to prove that the practice 
of * ' Communion in One Kind ' ' is one of her innovations in recent centuries. 

Cassander, a noted Roman divine, says, ''It is sufficiently manifest, that 
the Universal Church of Christ until this day, and the Western or Roman 
Church for more than a thousand years after Christ, did exhibit the sacra- 
ment in both kinds to all the members of Christ's Church, at least in pub- 
lic, as it is most evident by innumerable testimonies both of Greek and 
Latin" fathers " (Consultatio, page 981, Paris edition, 1616). 

Thomas Aquinas, the great schoolman before the Reformation, says, ''Ac- 
cording to the ancient custom of the Church, all those that were partakers 
of the communion of His body were partakers also of the communion of 
His blood" (Vol. 3: page 523). 

Lyra, a great commentator of the fourteenth century, says, "In first 
Corinthians, eleventh chapter, there is mention made of communion in both 
kinds; for in the Primitive Church it was given in both kinds to the faith- 
ful" (Lyra in First Corinthians, Edition, 1473). 

Even the Council of Constance which decreed that John Huss must be 
burned at the stake because he contended for the rights and privileges of 
the people to receive the open book and the cup which our Lord instituted, 
admitted that the practice of the early Church was as described above. In 
the decree enacted June 15, 1415, that Council declared: 

' ' Though Christ instituted this venerable sacrament under both kinds, 
and though, in the Primitive Church, this sacrament was received by the 
faithful under both kinds, yet this custom, that it should be received by 
laymen under the kind of bread oia\j, is to be held for a law which may 
not be refused". 

That Council also decreed that persons who maintained that this newly 
enacted law was illicit or sacrilegious were to be condemned as heretics, and 
that priests who dared to communicate their flocks in both kinds should be 
excommunicated and handed over to the secular arm to be burned. This is 
still the law of Rome, as it was on the sixth of July, 1415, when she burned 
John Huss at the stake, though she has not the present power to put into 
execution, and this is all that prevents her from so doing. 



PAPAL DECREES ON COMMUNION IN ONE KIND 95 

Half -Communion Declared Heretical by Popes 

Seeing that such is the mind of the ancient Church, we should naturally 
look to find half -communion, like Mariolatry and the invocation of angels, con- 
demned as a heresy when it first crops up. And so we do, bj' the highest 
authority, moreover, which Roman Catholics acknowledge. 

Pope Leo the Great declares that abstinence from the chalice is a Mani- 
chean heresy, and says: "They receive Christ's Body with unworthy mouth, 
and entirely refuse to quaff the blood of our redemption; therefore, w^e give 
notice to you, holy (brethren), that men of this sort, whose sacrilegious de- 
ceit has been detected, are to be expelled by the priestly authority from the 
fellowship of the Saints." (Hom. 81.) 

Pope Gelasius I., in a letter to the bishops Majoricus and John, embodied 
in the Roman canon law (Corp. Jur. Can. "Decret." 3: 2, 12,) says: "We 
have ascertained that certain persons, having received. a portion of the Sacred 
Body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred Blood. Let 
such persons, without any doubt (since they are stated to feel themselves 
bound by some superstititious reason) either receive the Sacrament in its en- 
tirety, or be repelled from the entire Sacrament, because the division of one 
and the same mystery cannot take place without sacrilege. ' ' 

The Pope is clearly speaking about laymen here, for he not only does not 
name priests, but the clause about repelling must refer to the duty of the 
celebrant in respect of such disobedient communicants, as he clearly could 
not repel himself; and we should find, if priests w^ere intended, some threat of 
suspension of deposition instead. Accordingly in the older editions of the 
Canons (as those collected by Ivo of Charters and Micrologus,) the heading 
ran: "No one is permitted to receive the Communion of the Body alone with- 
out partaking of the Blood," but it has been altered in the later editions into, 
"The priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Blood." 
Even Cardinal Baronious rejects this gloss as foolish ffrigidam.) ("Ann. 
Eccl." A. D. 496.) 

Thus it is clear that what so shocked Gelasius was exactly what is seen 
in every Roman church now, the priest alone receiving the chalice, and the 
laity abstaining from it. The case was not as if the priest had attempted to 
consecrate in one kind only. 

The Council of Clermont, presided over in 1095 by Pope Urban II. in 
person, decreed in its twenty-eighth canon, "No one shall communicate at the 
altar without he receive the Body and Blood separately and alike, unless by 
way of necessity, and for caution. ' ' 

Pope Paschal II. wrote thus to Pontius, Abbot of Cluny, in A. D. 1118: 
* * Therefore, according to the same Cyprian, in receiving the Lord 's Body 
and Blood, let the Lord's tradition be observed; nor let any departure be 
made, through a human and novel institution, from what Christ the Master 
ordained and did. For we know that the Bread w^as given separately, and 
the Wine given separately, by the Lord Himself; which custom we therefore 
teach and command to be observed in the Holy Church, save in the case of 
infants, and of very infirm people, who cannot swallow bread." (Ep. 535, t. 
163, p. 442, ed. Migne.) 



9Ci EOME 'S ARGUMENTS FOR HER POSITION 

Here, then, are four popes, and on the third occasion with a council 
of 218 bishops and abbots, deciding one way; and, on the other hand, the 
first decree the other way w^as at Constance after tte CoTincil had just deposed 
one Pope as a heretic and schismatic, but had not yet elected any other in 
his stead. John XXIII. was deposed on May 29, 1415, the canon enjoining 
half-communion was passed on June 15, 1415, and the new Pope was not 
elected till November 11, 1417. So that the evidence against the lawfulness 
of the change is overwhelming, even on Roman grounds. 

Rome's Defence of her Sacrilege 

The Council of Trent denied that there is any divine precept obliging any 
but the celebrant to communicate in both kinds, and she defends half-com- 
munion on these grounds: 

1. Christ said not only, ''Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood 
hath eternal life", but also, ''The bread that I will give is My flesh, which 
I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:53 and 51). He not only, 
said, "He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and 
I in him," but also, "He that eateth of this bread shall live forever" (John 
6:56, 58). 

2. The practice of half-communion is defended on the ground of its hav- 
ing been practised by the early Church in times of persecution or of sending 
to the sick; also by the plea that the apostles were all priests and therefore 
were all entitled to commune in both kinds. 

3. Christ received entire under each kind, so that those who receive 
only one kind are ' ' not defrauded of any grace necessary to salvation ' '. 
This doctrine (which they call "concomitance") Rome basis chiefly on 1 Cor. 
11:27: "Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this sup of the Lord unworth- 
ily". (Rev. Ver.) (The Common Version reads, "And drink this cup". In 
favor of this reading are the Alexandrian Codex, the oldest printed Vulgates, 
the Mazarin Bible, the first printed Bible, etc). 

4. The Church has the right to change any details in the administra- 
tion of the sacraments. 

5. This change was made under pretence of greater reverence for the 
sacrament by guarding against accident to the cup by which a drop of the 
precious blood might be spilled and desecrated. 

In reply it has been well said, 

(1) The sixth chapter of John refers to events in our Lord's life at 
least a year before the institution of the Lord's supper and cannot be pressed 
into a defining of rules in reference to its observance. But if it is to be so 
applied, verses 53 and 54 would certainly teach the necessity of cornmuning 
in both kinds, if eternal life can come only through this ordinance. "Except 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life 
in yourselves ' '. 

Rome's argument given above (1) is drawn from the fact that certain 
verses speak of bread only. It is also argued from such texts as Acts 2:46 
and 20:7, communion is spoken of as "the breaking of bread", implying 
that there was communion in one kind only. The passover is often spoken 
of in scripture as "the feast of unleavened bread" (Matt. 26:17, Mark 14: 



NO RIGHT TO CHANGE CHRIST'S ORDINANCES 97 

12, etc.). This does not pr.ove that such bread was the only article used in 
the passover. There were also the flesh of the paschal lamb, bitter herbs 
and wine. Twice persons are spoken of as being "baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:16 and 19:5). Does this disprove that Jesus com- 
manded His disciples to baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost? 

(2) The ancient cases cited by the Council of Trent were, on her own 
admission, exceptional cases. Would any government enact as law, that 
her soldiers or sailors should have no more than a biscuit and a pint of water 
a day. because of certain instances when rations ran short and necessity re- 
quired such a limitation! 

The apostles are never called priests, but all who believe in our Lord 
Jesus have been made "kings and priests unto God and His Father" (Rev. 
1:5, 6). 

(.")) The dogma of "concomitance", or that Christ is received in full 
under either kind, is one of Rome 's unblushing, arrogant assumptions. Our 
Lord Jesus appointed both. This must have been because He considered both 
important as emblems of His broken body and shed blood and illustrative of 
the full provision made by Him for our necessities. There is a meaning also 
in their being presented separately, because this is necessarily implied in 
death, which means separation. To withhold the cup is to deny the cleansing 
fountain of Christ 's blood, which tlie cup symbolizes. 

(4) The Church has no right to change ordinances instituted by Christ 
at her will. God said on the mount of transfiguration, ' * This is My Beloved 
Son in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him." Paul wrote in reference to 
the Lord's Supper, "I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered 
unto you". And one thing which he received and delivered w^as, "Drink 
ye all of it". 

(5) Rome's pretence of venerating the ordinance by guarding against 
spilling the cup is mere pretence. W^hat about the danger of the wind blow- 
ing away a crumb of the bread or its falling to the ground and being trod- 
den underfoot? The danger of one is as great as the other. 

As to the right of Popes or Councils to alter Christ's law^s, hear the testi- 
mony of some "fathers": 

"A custom, beginning from some ignorance or simplicity, hardens into 
use by continuance, and so is defended against the truth. But our Lord ,l^sus 
Christ called Himself the Truth, and not the custom. Since Christ is forever, 
and before all, so, too, truth is an everlasting and ancient thing. Let those 
beware, therefore, to whom that is new which in itself is old. It is not so 
much novelty as truth which refutes heresies. Whatever savours of opposition 
to the truth, this is heresy, even if an old custom." — (Tertullian, " De Vel. 
Virg.,"l.) 

"Custom, without truth, is only antiquity of error," (St. Cyprian, Ep. 74.) 

■ That Christ alone has a right to be heard, the Father Himself attests 

from heaven, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. 

Hear Him' (St. Matt. 17:5); therefore, if Christ alone is to be listened to, we 

ought not to heed what any one before our time may have thought fit to be 



f)8 A DEEP-LAID f^CHEME 

(lone, but what Christ, Who is before all, first actually did. For we ought not 
to follow man's custom, but God's truth, seeing that God speaks and says by 
the prophet Isaiah, 'In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men' (Isa. 29; 13; St. Matt. 15:9.) And the Lord repeats 
this same thing again in the Gospels saying, *Ye reject the commandments of 
God, that ye may keep your own tradition' (St, Mark 7:9.) But in another 
place He laijs down a rule, and says, 'Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of 
the least of these commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least 
in the kingdom of heaven' (St. Matt. 1:5-19.) So then, if it be not lawful to 
break even the least of the Lord's commandments, how much more is it im- 
pious to violate, and to change by human traditions into something different 
from the divine institution, such great and weighty things, and so closely 
pertaining to the very sacrament of the Lord's Passion and our redemption! 
For, if Jesus Christ our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the 
Father, and first oft'ered Himself in Sacrifice to the Father, and bade this be 
done in commemoration of Him, surely that priest acts in Christ 's stead who 
imitates what Christ did. But the whole discipline of religion and truth is 
overthrown unless there be faithful observance of that which is spirituallj- 
enjoined." (St. Cyprian, Ep. 63.) 

''Let n« man prefer custom to reason and truth, for reason and truth 
shut out the plea of custom." — (St. Augustine, "De Bapt. cont. Donat. ":11.) 
"The Lord in the Gospel said, I am the Truth; He did not say, I am the 
custom. Therefore when the truth is made plain, custom must give way to 
truth."— (Idem. 6:71.) 

Is it not clearly manifest that Eome has a deep laid and far reaching 
purpose when she invented the dogmas of Transubstantiation and of Com- 
munion in One Kind? These were but part of a well connected scheme to 
exalt the Eoman hierarchy, from the Pope down through all the varying or- 
ders of the Roman clergy, so as to give them increased domination over the 
conscience and mind of the people. As Ave shall see in a later chapter, Tran- 
substantiation, the Mass and Purgatory are inseparable parts of the Roman 
system. In order that Rome might exercise her despotism over the minds 
of her subjects, she invented the doctrine of purgatory, one essential feature 
of which is that pope and priests have power to relieve from its sufferings 
through their offerings and intercessions. Then in order to make it appear 
that they have an oblation which they can offer as the means of delivering from 
these sufferings, they invent a dogma according to which they are endued 
with power to transform the elements of the Lord's Supper into the actual 
body and blood of Jesus in order that they may have an oblation or sacrifice 
to offer in the mass. Closely allied to this is Rome's practice of withhold- 
ing the cup from the laity. This helped to build up the distinction which 
has been created by false teachings through centuries between the priests 
and ordinary believers. The cup is given only to the priests as though they 
were a superior order of beings, worthy of the veneration of those who con- 
stitute the rank and file. It can now be clearly seen why John Huss and his 
followers contended for the rights of the people to the cup as well as to the 
open Bible, and why the cup and the Book became the insignia by which the 



WITHHOLDING BOTH BKEAD AND CUP iM> 

Eeformed Churches in Bohemia were dietinguised from the Roman Catholic 
Churches. The martyr Huss not only ooutended for the honors and rights 
of Jesus Christ as our Anointed Proi3h»t, Piiest and King, but he also con 
tended for the rights of the people to tk« blood-bought privileges which our 
Lord offers to all in His Gospel. 

A Grave Inconsistency 

There are many who grow zealous in their advocacy of the right of the 
laity to the cup, who nevertheless deprive themselves of the use of both 
the bread and the cup bj^ their neglect to observe the communion of the 
Lord's Supper. Either they have no genuine love for the Lord Who gave 
His blood for their redemption, or they do not realize the importance of 
obeying His commandments. Perhaps they reason that the reception of a 
little bread and a little wine can bring no blessing with it. Nor can it of 
itself. It is clearly held by the reformed churches that the sacraments cannot, 
either by their oAvn virtue or the virtue of those who administer, but by the 
blessing of Him Who appointed them, become a means of blessing to those 
who by faith receive them. It should be enough for every follower of the 
Lord Jesus that He said emphatically the night before His death, ' ' This do 
in remembrance of Me." It is inconsistent to cry against the Church of 
Rome for withholding the cup from the laity if we in our turn will deny 
ourselves the use of both the cup and the bread. W^e should seelj: that prepar- 
ation of heart and mind w'hich is necessary to a true and proper observance 
of the Lord "s Supper, then we should let nothing prevent our obeying our 
Lord's dying command, ''This do in remembrance of Me." 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What is Rome's teaching and practice in reference to Communion in one 
kind? 

WHiat did God say through Moses on adding to or taking from His ord- 
inances? 

With what warning does the Bible close? 

How did Rome add to the sacraments? How does she take from? 

Has communion in one kind been the universal practice of the Church? 

W^hat do manj' of the fathers say about this dogma and practice? 

What did Pope Leo the Great say? W^hat did Pope Gelasius say? Pope 
Paschal II.? 

What did the Council of Clermont declare? 

On what Scriptures does Rome pretend to base her practice? 

Does John (i refer to the Lord's Supper? On the supposition that it 
does, what verses teach the necessity of partaking of the cup as well as of 
the bread? 

On what texts does Rome chiefly rely? 

How do you answer the objection that in certain texts in Acts the supper 
is spoken of as the breaking of bread only? 

Is Christ received as well under one kind as under both? 

Have men the right to change God's ordinances? 

Should any neglect the observance of the Lord's Supper? 



100 FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ROMISH CREED 



LESSON XIV. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION NOT PROVED BY THE BIBLE 



Fifth Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

"I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true proper 
and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. And that in the most 
holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really and substantially the 
body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; 
and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into 
the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; which con- 
version the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also confess, that under 
either kind alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament." 
(Extracted from the ''Ordo Administrandi Sacrament!,'' p. 67. London, 1840). 



This article relates to three subjects: — The Sacrifice of the Mass, Tran- 
substantiation, and Communion in one Kind. We shall now direct attention 
to the dogma of transubstantiation, as on it is founded the sacrifice of the 
mass. 

Transubstantiation as taught by Rome. The word ''transubstantiation'- 
means a change of substance. The Church of Rome teaches that the sub 
stance of bread and wdne are changed into the literal body and the blood 
of Christ. The Council of Trent says: 

Canon I. "If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together 
with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire 
Christ, are truly and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most 
holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as in a sign, or in a 
figure, or virtually, let him be accursed. ' ' 

Thus tjie Church of Rome curses the man who denies that the body 
and blood, together with the soul and divinity of Christ, are truly, really 
and substantially contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist. But she 
goes even further. The same Council teaches: 

Canon 2. "If anj' one shall say, that the substance of the bread and 
wine remains in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with 
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful 
and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body 
and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms 
of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church 
most aptly calls transubstantiation, — let him be accursed. ' ' 

Lest it might be held that the elements of the bread and Avine remain 
in their natural substance with the body and blood of Christ, she hurls a 
curse at him who denies the wonderful and singular conversion of the whole 
substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the 
wine into the blood! But she goes even further. The same Council says: — 

Canon 3. "If any one shall denv that in the venerated sacrament of 



THE WORSHIP OF THE WAFER 101 

the Eucharist, entire Christ is contained in each kind, and in each several 
particle of either kind when separated, — let him be accursed." 

Thus, if the consecrated bread be severed into a thousand parts, or into 
a million crumbs, each part or crumb is entire Christ! If the wine be 
divided into numberless drops, each drop is entire Christ — body, soul and 
divinity! The Church of Eome goes further still. The Council of Trent 
says: — 

Canon 4. "If any one shall say that, after consecration, the body and 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is only in the wonderful sacrament of the 
Eucharist in use whilst it is taken, and not either before or after, and that 
true body of the Lord does not remain in the host or particles which have 
been consecrated, and which are reserved, or remain after the communion, — 
let him be accursed." 

This is explicit enough. The body and blood of our Lord is not only 
in the "wonderful sacrament" when taken, but the true body of our Lord 
remains in the host or particles, which have been consecrated and are re- 
served or remain after communion. The Council of Trent teaches that: — 

"Not only the true body of Christ, and whatever appertains to the 
true mode of existence of a body, as the bones and nerves, but also that 
entire Christ is contained in this sacrament. ' ' On the Sacrament of the 
Eucharist, page 241. Venice, 1582. 

The Host Worshipped "with Latria. In accordance with this dogma, the 
Church of Rome teaches that the host is to be worshipped with the open 
worship of latria — Divine honor — according to her own exposition; and she does 
worship it in the Mass: — 

Canon 6. "If any one shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son 
of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even 
with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with 
any peculiar festal celebrity, nor ,to be solemnly carried about in the pro- 
cession according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of 
the Holy Church, and that He is not to be adored, and that His adorers are 
idolaters, — let him be accursed." 

Is the host, we ask, the Christ, the Lord of Glory, — the God-man I Or 
is it not? This is the question. We answer. It is not; and believing that 
it is mere flour and water, we refuse to adore it. The Church of Rome 
answers that it is, and makes it the great object of her worship in the Mass. 

Romish Arguments Adduced in Favor of this Monstrous Dogma 

Certain passages of Scripture are quoted by Romanists on this subject, 
to which we shall direct attention. W^e would, however, premise, that som-; 
of the most eminent Roman Catholics admit that Scripture does not prove 
this doctrine. They suppose that it rests on the authority of the Church. 

Admissions of Romanists. Scotus, professor of Divinity of Oxford, 
called the "Subtle Doctor," says distinctly that before the Council of Lat 
eran, transubstantiation was not an article of faith. He also maintains that 
there was no place of Scripture express enough to prove that dogma without 
Church authority.— Bell. lib. 3, De Euch.. cap. 28, sect. 12, p. 33, tom. 3. 



102 JOHN SIXTH AND THE SUPPER 

Sauresius, the Jesuit, says: "From the doctrine of faith it is collected 
that those schoolmen are to be corrected, who teach that this doctrine, con- 
cerning this conversion or transubstantiation, is NOT VERY ANCIENT, 
amongst whom are Scotus and Gabriel Biel. ' ' P. 594, Mogust, 1610. 

The Roman Catholic Bishop Tonstal says: "Of the manner and means 
of the real presence, how it might be either by transubstantiation or other 
wise, perhaps it had been better to leave any one, who would be curious 
to his own opinion, as before the Council of Lateran it was left. ' ' De Euch. 
lib. 1. p. 46. 

Gabriel Biel, the great commentator, in the 14th century, says: "Hoav 
the body of Christ is in the sacrament, is not expressed in the canon of the 
Bible." Lect. 6, fol. 94, Basil, 1515. 

Cardinal de AUiaco says: "That manner and meaning which supposeth 
the substance of bread to remain, IS POSSIBLE; neither is it contrary to 
reason, nor to the authority of the Scripture: nay, it is more easy and more 
reasonable to conceive, if it could only accord with the Church. ' ' Vol. 
CCXVI. Paris. 

Such is the candid admission of learned Roman Catholics. 

Let us inquire into the meaning of passages adduced in favor of tran- 
substantiation. 

The sixth chapter of John is quoted: 

"Then Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in 
you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and 
I will raise Him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed and My 
blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, 
dwelleth in Me, and I in Him" (John 6:53-56). 

The Romanist argues from this, that the believer feeds upon the literal 
flesh and blood of Christ in the Eucharist bread and wine. 

1. We answer, that this passage has no direct reference to the sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper. The discourse in the chapter was delivered at least 
twelve months before the institution of the Lord's Supper. (John 6:4 com- 
pared with John 12:1.) But Christ uses the present tense, "Except ye eat." 
It was their duty to partake of that spiritual food even at the time when 
He delivered the discourse. Therefore the words cannot refer to the sacra- 
ment, which was not then instituted. 

2. The passage must be understood either literally or figuratively. It 
is not received in the absolutely literal sense by Rome herself. She only goes 
as far as suits her purpose in her literal interpretation. 

(1) Jesus said, "Except ye eat the flesh -of the Son of man and drink 
His blood, ye have no life in you." This, if referring to the sacrament 
and understood literally, would prove that all who do not receive that sacra- 
ment must perish! Then infants are lost. Indeed, some in the ancient 
Church, thinking that Christ alluded to the Eucharist, administered it to in 
fants, believing that without it they could not be saved. Let Rome be con- 
sistent and, teaching that the sacrament is absolutely necessary to salvation, 
give it to infants. 



LITERAL OR FIGrRATIVE lO:; 

If this passage be understood literally, no layman has life, for he is 
deprived of the cup. Christ says, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. ' ' 

They answer that they receive the blood in the wafer. Of what use, 
then, is the cup at all? But granting this for argument's sake, they do 
not literally drink the blood, for they cannot drink the waferl 

The Bohemians, in the 14th century, thinking that this passage referred 
to the sacrament, took up arms and compelled the Church of Rome to give 
them the cup. It is now, however, withdrawn. 

(2) Jesus said, "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath 
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (v. 54). 

This, if understood literally, would prove that all communicants are 
saved, which the Church of Rome admits is not the case. 

(3) Jesus said, "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven" 
(V. 51). 

If this "be understood literally, it would prove that Christ 's flesh cam« 
down from heaven, which would contradict the truth that He was "born 
of the Virgin Mary. ' ' 

(4) If the passage be understood literally, it would prove that there 
are two ways of salvation — one by the sacrament and the other by faith. 
"He that eateth of this bread shall live forever" (v. 58). "He that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John 3:36). 

3. The declaration must be received figuratively. It refers to the one 
way of salvation by faith. The 35th verse is a key to the interpretation 
of the chapter. "He that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that 
believeth on Me shall never thirst." How are we to feed on Christ? By 
coming to Him. How are we to drink His blood? By believing on Him. 

The Saviour explains His meaning clearly: "What and if ye shall see 
the Son of man ascend to where He was before? It is the Spirit that quicken- 
eth; the flesh profit eth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are 
spirit, and they are life" (John 6;62, 63). 

We quote Augustine 's words on this passage, not because his comments 
contain any particul-ir weight, but because Rome professes to reverence his 
authority: "If a passage is perceptive and either forbids a crime or wicked- 
ness, or enjoins usefulness or charity, it is not figurative. But if it seems 
to command a crime or wickedness or to forbid usefulness or kindness, it is 
figurative. * Unless ye shall eat, ' He says, ' the flesh of the Son of man, and 
drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you. ' He appears to enjoin wicked- 
ness, or a crime. It is a figure, therefore, teaching us that we partake of the 
benefits of the Lord's passion, and that we must sweetly and profitably 
treasure up in our memories, that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us ' ' 
(The Third Book upon Christian Doctrine, Vol. 3, p. 52. Benedictine Edit., 
printed at Paris, 1685). 

Christ says, "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where 
He was before?" As though He had said, "You think that I speak of My 
flesh, by My body shall ascend into heaven, far beyond the reach of being 
eaten by man. " " The flesh profiteth nothing. ' ' Even though you were to 



104 THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION EXAMINED 

pactake of My body, it would not save your souls. ''The words that I speak 
unto you, they are spirit, and they are life;" they have a spiritual significa- 
tion, and they show that you must feed on Me by faith; for "he that cometh 
unto Me shall never hunger: and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst." 

Jesus constantly used figurative language in order to enforce the truths 
which He taught: and this discourse proves that a bare profession of truth 
will not do, but that we must be really partakers of spritual blessings, and 
feed thereon, and grow. 

Instances of such figurative language are found also in Isaiah 55:l-.3; 
John 37-39; Matt. 16:5-11. 

The Words of Institution 

The words of institution also are quoted. See Luke 22:14-20. 
1. The Feast is Commemorative, as was the Passover. The very occasion 
will explain the words. It was at the paschal feast that Christ instituted 
the sacrament. The paschal lamb commemorated the passover, or the I^ord 's 
having passed over the children of Israel (Exod. 12), and yet the lamb was 
called "the passover." When Christ said, "This passover" (v. 15), He 
meant this commemoration of the passover; and He could not mean that it 
was literally the passover, for tTiat would have been contrary to fact. In 
like manner He said, * ' This is My body. ' ' At a commemorative feast He 
institutes another commemorative ordinance, which was to supersede the 
former and to be observed "in remembrance of Him." 

2. The Apostolic Beception of Christ's Words. The apostles, it is evident, 
understood our Lord as do we. They were accustomed to figurative language, 
in which the Saviour constantly spoke. "This passover" did not mean the 
literal passover, but the commemoration of it. Likewise the words, "This 
is My body," did mean the literal body, but the commemoration of it. They 
did not believe that Christ, whom they saw and with whom they spoke took 
His own body, in His own hands, and broke it into twelve parts, each part 
being a whole body, and gave His flesh and blood to thein to eat! It was 
contrary to the law of God to drink blood, and much more human blood. 
The apostles surely did not suppose that they were thus violating the law. 
No exclamation escapes their lips. Peter was ever forward in asking an 
explanation when such was needed, but non^ was needed now; which plainly 
proves that they did not receive the Lord's words in the monstrous sense 
of Rome. , 

3. The Feast Commemorative from Christ's Words. The words, "Do 
this in remembrance of Me," and the apostolic declaration, "For as often 
as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till 
He come" (1 Cor. 11:26), plainly proves that the sacrament commemorates 
the Saviour who is bodily absent. How could it be done in remembrance of 
Him, if He were present in body, blood, soul and deity? How could it be 
said that "we show the Lord's death till He come," if He were already come 
literallj*- upon the altar. 

4. The Words Themselves Refute Transubstantiation. Christ distinctly 
calls the wine "the fruit of the vine" (Luke 22:18), and the apostle repeat- 



EXA^JPLEIS OF FIGIRATIVE SCRIPTURES 105 

ly calls the saerameiital elements "bread" and "the cup" (See 1 Cor. 11: 
26. 27). 

5. The Apostolic Account Refutes Transubstantiatiou. Read 1 Cor. 11: 
23-2(i. Christ said, ' ' This cup is the New Testament. ' ' Here is a double 
.figure of speech. First, the cup is put for the wine, and secondly, the wine 
is called the New Testament. We ask, Was the cup literally transubstantiated 
into the new testament or covenant? 

6. The Church of Rome Inconsistent with Herself. To insist upon the 
literal interpretation is contrary to common use, to the practice of the Church 
of Rome in other respects, and to common sense. One friend says to an- 
other, pointing to the statue of the great Scottish reformer, "This is John 
Knox," WTio would therefore argue that the substance of the stone was 
changed into the flesh and blood of that great man? In every day life we 
call the commemoration by the name of the thing commemorated. It is con- 
trary also to the practice of the Church of Rome in other respects. The 
Scripture calls the consecrated elements bread and the fruit of the vine. 
She does not receive the literal interpretation in this case, though that inter 
pretation would be accordant with right reason. 

Jacob said, "Judah is a lion's whelp" (Gen. 49:9). 

Was Judah therefore transubstantiated into the cub of a lionV 

"Iss.ichar is a strong ass" (Gen. 49:14). 

"Their throat is an open sepulchre" (Rom. 8:13). 

Was Issachar therefore literally converted into a donkey? 

Is the human throat therefore changed into a yawning tomb? 

Jesus said to John on Patmos: "The seven stars are the angels of the 
seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). 

Were the angels of those churches transformed into literal stars and the 
churches into literal candlesticks? 

For other figurative uses of words, see Psalm 119:105; Isa, 40:(5; Dan. 
7:17; Joan 10:9; John 15:1; 1 Cor. 10:4. 

Many other such instances might be given in which it would be contrary 
to Rome herself and to common sense to insi-st upon literal interpretation. 

That Rome still lays a chief emphasis upon her dogma of transubstantiatiou 
is apparent in all her literature on this subject. From a book entitled "The 
Catholic Faith/' a compendium authorized by Pope Pius X., w.e learn, "In the 
Eucharist there is truly the same Jesus Christ Who is in heaven, and Who was 
born on earth of the most holy Virgin. The conversion of the bread into the 
body and of the wine into the blood of Jesus Christ takes place in the very act 
in which the priest pronounces the words of consecration. The consecration is 
the repetition, by the priest 's agency, of the miracle wrought by Jesus Christ 
at the last supper in changing the bread and wine into His adorable body and 
blood when He said, 'This is My body. This is My blood.' This miraculous con- 
version of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which 
takes place daily upon our altars, is called by the Church transubstantiatiou" 
(page 74.) 

Because of the central place this dogma holds in the Romish system, we 
shall devote another lesson to its consideration. Against the Romish view 



10(3 THE VIEWS OF KEFOKMERS 

the reformers Avere uiumimous iu sotting thoir face. Luther alone did not 
take up as distinct an attitude of opposition as could have been desired. He 
was so under bondage to Rome 's teachings that while the elements remained 
unchanged, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus is "in, with and under" 
the bread and the wine. He used the word ''Consubstantiation" to set forth 
his altered views. Calvin was very decided in his rejection of the Romish 
view. He held that the prayer of consecration separates the elements 
from a common to a sacred use and makes them sanctified organs 
for cummunicating the grace of God. But they were mere bread and wine 
before their consecration, and Christ in the Supper is only a fuller measure 
of that same spiritual presence in the heart which the believer receives by 
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the operation of His Holy Spirit. 

The germs of the dogma of transubstantiation probably began to appear 
in the fifth century, when men were very apt to accept exaggerated opinions 
of the Christian ' ' mysteries. ' ' The Roman Church as a whole first promul- 
gated it in the Lateran Council, in 1215. 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

"What three subjects are involved in Article V. of the Romish Creed! 

On Avhat dogma is the sacrifice of the Mass founded? 

What is the meaning of the word ' * Transubstantiation ' ' ? 

What does Rome teach bv her dogma on the subject of Transubstantia- 
tion? 

What curse does she pronounce upon those who regard the Lord's Sup- 
per as a sign or figure? 

What does she teach in reference to the separate parts or particles of 
the bread or wine? 

What name does Rome give to the consecrated bread? 

What idolatrous veneration does she give to the bread, or Host? 

What did the Council of Trent declare in Canon 6 on this subject? 

What admissions are made by such Romanists as Scotus, Sauresius, Bishop 
Tonsta, Biel, etc.? 

On what chapter in -John 's Gospel do Romanists lay great stress ? 

Do our Lord's words in that chapter refer to the Lord's Supper? 

If part of its declaration apply to that Sacrament, how should it all be 
applied ? 

How does John 6:53 affect Rome's teaching of the communion in one 
kind? 

What is the true interpretation of John 0:35 and surrounding verses? 

What was Augustine's interpretation of that chapter? 

How do the words of institution of the Lord's Supper teach that it was 
designed to be commemorative? 

How did the apostles evidently understand and receive Christ's words? 

If the wine was changed into blood, what Jewish law was violated in 
partaking of it? - 

How do Christ's own words establish a commemorative idea? 

What does Jesus call the contents of the cup in Luke 22:18? 

Give examples of the frequent use of words in the Bible in a figurative 
sense? 



SCRIPIT'RAL OBJECTIONS j jlO; 



LESSON XV 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURE AND THE 

SENSES 



Fifth Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

(See foregoing statement) 
Having imswered the arguments which are u.^ed in favor of transiib- 
stantiation, we shall now attempt to prove that the dogma in question is 
opposed to the "Word of God and to the testimony of the senses. 

1. Christ Bodily Absent. The Bible teaching is that Christ is bodily ab- 
sent from us. The Church of Rome avers that He is literally present on 
every altar. Christ is ever present with His people in the Spirit, and with 
them even unto the end of the world, but not in the flesh. Jesus alludes 
to His departure when He says, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go 
away and come again unto you. If ye love Me, ye would rejoice because I 
said, I go unto the Father" (John 14:28). ''And He shall send Jesus Christ, 
which before was preached unto you, Whom the heaven must receive until 
the times of restitution of all things" (Acts 5:29, 21). Every text which 
proves that Christ ascended into heaven disproves the dogma of transub- 
stantiation. His body, haying ascended into heaven, must there remain until 
the restitution of all things, w^hen He shall come forth in power and great 
glory. 

2. The Law Forbids the Use of the Blood. The doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation involves a breach of the law of God. By the law^ of Moses the people 
were forbidden to partake of blood (Lev. 17:14). This law was ratified under 
the gospel dispensation (Acts 15:28, 29). It is impossible to suppose that 
while the apostles thus ratified the law of God, they believed and taught 
that they were partakers not merely of the blood of an animal, but of a man! 

3. Christ Will Come Bodily at His Second Advent. The doctrine which 
teaches that Christ is coming upon every altar is opposed to the Scriptural 
truth that when He comes again it will be in the clouds of heaven and as 
lightning that cometh out of the east and shineth unto the west. 

4. Christ Not Subject to Humiliation. The doctrine of transubstantiation 
according to which Christ is now humiliated is opposed to the Scripture truth 
that His humiliation has terminated and that He is now, as the reward of 
His sufferings, exalted in heaven. The following prayer is found in the Missal 
for the Laity: — 

"May Thy body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy blood which 
I have drunk, cleave to my bowels, and grant that no stain of sin may remain 
in me, who have been fed w^ith this pure and holy sacrament. Who lived 
and reigned forever and ever. Amen." (The Pocket Missal for the use of 
the Laity, p. 30. Dublin, 1844.) 

The Eoman Missal, published in Mechlin, 1840, contains the following 
rubric: — *'If the priest vomit the Eucharist, if the species appear entire. 



108 THE HOST THE WORK OF MEN ^S HAND'S 

let them be reverently swallowed, unless sickness arise; for then let the con- 
secrated species be cautiously separated and laid up in some sacred place 
until they are corrupted, and afterwards let them be cast into the sacrarium. 
But if the species do not ajjpear, let the vomit be burned and the ashes cast 
into the sacrarium. ' ' 

Thus according to Eoman doctrine the body of our Lord cleaves to the 
bowels of the communicant. It may wallow in the vomit of the priest — de- 
basing dogma! If this be true, Christ is still humiliated, yea, the blessed 
Jesus, with reverence Ave speak, is subject to the lowest degradation. But 
this is not the doctrine of the Bible. He now wears the crown; He is now 
at the right hand of the Father; He is exalted with great triumph in the 
skies; His humiliation. His life of ignominy, woe and sufferng has ended 
(Phil. 2:8, 9; Heb. 2:9; Acts 2:33, 36). 

5. Christ's Body Not Corruptible. Transubstantiation, according to which 
Christ '"s body is subject to corruption, contradicts the Word of God. The 
preceding quotation from the Roman Missal contains the following passage: 
' ' Let them, the consecrated elements, be cast in the sacrarium, UNTIL THEY 
ARE CORRUPTED." In Psalm 16:10 it is written, ''For Thou wilt not 
leave my soul in hell; neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see cor- 
ruption." This declaration is applied by the Apostle Peter to the body of 
Christ (see Acts 2:25-27). Thus the Bible and the Missal are at direct var- 
iance. 

6. The Host the Work of Hands. The Host is made of flour and water, 
and baked upon fire. The Church teaches that when the priest pronounces 
the words, * ' Hoc est corpus meum, ' ' it is converted into the body of Christ. 
Transubstantiation is opposed to the word of God which testifies that the 
work of men's hands is not God. When the Psalmist would refute the hea- 
then doctrine in reference to the Godhead, he says, "The idols of the hea- 
then are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but 
they speak not, eyes but they see not. They have ears but they hear not; 
neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like 
unto them; so is everyone that trusteth in them" (Psalm 135:15-18). 

The Uncertainty of Consecration 

The Church of Rome, we have seen, teaches that intention on the part 
of the priest is necessary in the administration of the sacraments. If the 
priest want the intention of doing what he professes to do, consecration is 
invalid, and the people worship the works of their own hands. Intention, 
and other defects which may occur, are referred to in the Roman Missal, as 
follows: 

1. "Of Defects Occurring in the Celebration of the Mass. The priest about 
to celebrate Mass must take the utmost care that there be no defect in any 
of the things that are requisite for the making the sacrament of the Eucharist. 
Now a defect may occur on the part of the matter to be consecrated; on that 
of the form to be applied; and that of the minister celebrating. If there 
is a defect in any of these: namely, the due matter, the form with inten- 
tion, and the sacerdotal order of the celebrant, it nullifies the sacrament. 



UNCERTAINTY IN THE ADMINISTRATION 10!» 

'^2 Of Defects in the Matter. There is a defect in the matter, if any of 
those things be wanting which are requisite to the same. For it is requisite 
that the bread be wheaten, and the wine of the pure grape; and that this 
matter be, in order to be consecrated, before the priest (i. e., in his eye) in 
the act of consecrating. 

*'3. Of Defects in the Bread. If the bread be not wheaten; or if 
wheaten, yet if it be mixed with any other sort of grain in such quantity that 
it no longer remain wheaten bread; or if it be in any other respect corrupted — 
there is no sacrament. If it be made with rose water, or any other distilled 
water, it is doubtful whether there is a sacrament. 

"li it (the bread) has begun to corrupt, but is not corrupt; also if it 
be not unleavened, according to the custom of the Latin Church, the sacra- 
ment is made, but the celebrant sins grievously. 

"If the host after consecration disappear, either by any accident, as by 
the wind, or a miracle, or being taken and carried off by any animal: and 
if it cannot be recovered, then shall he consecrate another, beginning at the 
words, ' Wlio the day before He suffered, ' having first made the oblation of it. 

"4. Of Defects in the Wine. If the wine has become quite sour, or 
quite putrified, or has been pressed from sour grapes or unripe grapes, or have 
so much water mixed with it that the wine is corrupted, the sacrament is 
null. 

5. *'0f Defects in the Form. Defects may occur in the form, if any 
of these things be wanting, which are required to the entireness of the words 
in the consecration. Now the words of consecration, which are the form of 
this sacrament, are these: 'For this is My body;' and, 'For this is the chalice 
of My body of the new^ and eternal testament:' 'the mystery of faith which 
shall be shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins. ' Now, if any 
one should diminish or change anything of the form of consecration of the 
body and the blood, and by such change, the words should not signify the 
same thing; he would not make the sacrament. But if he should add any- 
thing which did not change the signification; he would make the sacrament, 
it is true; but he would sin most grievously. 

6. "Of Defects in the Minister. Defects may occur on the part of the 
minister, in respect of these things that are required in the same. Now 
these are: first of all, intention, and next, disposition of soul, disposition of 
body, disposition of vestments, and disposition of the ministration itself, in 
respect to the things (i. e., the defect) that can occur in the same. 

7. "Of Defect of Intention. If any one does not intend to make the 
sacrament but to do something delusively: Item, if any wafers remain for- 
gotten on the altar, or any part of the wine, or any wafer escapes his notice, 
when he intends to consecrate only those which he sees: Item, if one have 
before him eleven wafers, and intends to consecrate only ten, not determining 
what ten he intends; in these cases he does not consecrate, inasmuch as 
intention is essential. It is otherwise, if he think that there are ten, but 
yet he means to consecrate aU that he has before him, for then all will be 
consecrated; and, therefore every priest ought always to have such intention — 



110 CONTINUED ELEMENTS OF CNCERTAINTY 

namely, that of consecrating all that he has placed before him for consecra- 
tion. 

8. *'0f Defects of Disposition of Soul. If any one celebrate, who is 
suspended, excommunicatedj degraded, irregular, or otherwise canonically hin- 
dered, true he makes the sacrament, but he sins most grievously, as well in 
regard to the communion, which he takes unworthily, as because he executes 
the office of orders, which was interdicted him. If any one having opportunity 
of* a confessor celebrates in mortal sin, he sins grievously. If any one in a 
case of necessity, not having a confessor within reach, celebrate without con- 
trition in mortal siri, he sins grievously. It is otherwise if he be contrite; 
he ought, however, to confess as soon as possible. 

9. "Of Defects in Disposition and Body. If any one has broken his 
fast since midnight, even though by taking water only, or any other drink, 
or food, even by way of medicine, and in hoAvever small quantity, he cannot 
com^municate, or celebrate. 

10. ''Of the Defects in the Mihistration Itself. Defects also may occur 
in the ministration itself, if any of the things be wanting that are requisite 
to the same; as for instance, if the celebration be made in a place not sacred, 
or not appointed by the bishop, or on an altar not consecrated, or not covered 
with three altar-cloths; if there be not present waxen lights; if it be not the 
due time of massing, which is commonly from dawn to mid-day; if the cele- 
brant has not said at the least matins a/nd lauds; if he omit any of the sacer- 
dotal vestments; if the sacerdotal vestments and altar-cloths be not blessed 
by a bishop, or other having this power (granted him) ; if there be not pres- 
ent a clerk serving in the mass, or one serving who ought not to serve, as a 
woman; if there be not a suitable chalice with paten (a chalice) whose bowl 
ought to be of gold or silver, not of brass, or of glass; if the corporal be 
not clean, which ought to be of linen, not of silk, adorned in the center, 
and must be blessed by a bishop, or other having this power, as has been 
aforesaid; if he celebrate with head covered, without dispensation; if he 
have not the Missal before him, even though he should know by rote the 
mass which he intends to celebrate. 

''If before consecration a fly, or a spider, or anything, have fallen into 
the chalice, he shall throw the wine into a comely place, put other wine into 
the chalice, mix a little water therewith, offer it, and proceed with the mass; 
if after consecration a fly have fallen in, or anything of that sort, and a 
nausea be occasioned to the priest, he shall draw it out, and wash it with 
wine, and when the mass is finished, burn it, and the ashes and lotion shall 
be thrown into the sacrarium. But if he have not a nausea, nor fear of any 
danger, he shall drink them (ashes and lotion) with the blood. 

11. "If through negligence any of the blood of Christ have fallen on 
the ground, or on the boards, let it be licked up with the tongue, and let 
the spot be sufficiently scraped and the scrapings burned and the ashes laid 
up in the sacrarium. But if it have fallen on the altar stone, let the priest 
suck up the drop; and let the place be well washed, and the ablution thrown 
into the sacrarium; if on the altar-cloth, and the drop has penetrated to 
the second, and also to the third cloth, let the cloths in the places where 



THE I'OllSONKD "HC^ST" 111 

the drop has fallen be washed over the chalice, and the suds thrown into 
the sacrarium; but if on the corporal only, or on the priest's vestments, 
it ought to be washed out in like manner, and the ablution thrown into the 
sacrarium; also if on the foot cloth, or on the carpet. 

12. "If the priest vomit the Eucharist, if the species appear entire, 
let them be reverently swallowed, unless a sickness arise; for then let the 
consecrated species be cautiously separated and laid up in some sacred place, 
till they are corrupted, and afterwards let them be cast into the sacrarium. 
But if the species do not appear, let the vomit be burned, and the ashes cast 
into the sacrarium. 

13. "Defects also may occur in the ministration itself, if the priest 
is ignorant of the rites and ceremonies that are to be observed therein; all 
which rites and ceremonies are copiously laid down in the preceding rubrics." 
(Roman Missal.) 

Thus there are many defects which may occur to invalidate the conse- 
crating act. If consecration do not take place, th.e people fall down and 
worship Avhat, according to their own Church, is mere flour and W'ater. 

The Proba or Poisoned Host 

"So great is the uncertainty which exists in the Church of Rome as to 
the valid consecration of the Host, that the Pope himself does not venture 
to receive the wafer until it has been first tested by an officer appointed for 
the purpose. When His Holiness is a communicant, the following ceremonies 
as described by the Roman Catholic Calendar are used: 

"The Cardinal deacon then places three hosts upon the paten, and the 
pyx near the chalice. He takes out one of the three hosts, touches it with 
the other two, and gives it to M. Sagrista; he then takes another of the 
hosts, and touches it with the paten, and the chalice inside, and outside, and 
gives it also to the Sagrista, w^ho eats the two hosts. He then takes the 
cruets, and pours from them some wine and water into the cup held by the 
Sagrista, Avho drinks from it. This ceremony is called the proba." (Dublin 
Roman Catholic Calendar, p. 146.) 

The following explanation is given by the Calendar of these ceremonies: 

"Meurisius shows that at regal banquets it was customary to have per- 
sons who tasted the meats in order to remove the suspicion of poison. By 
the Romans they were called praegustatores, and the chief of them in the 
emperor 's household was named Procurator Praegustatorum. Claudius is said 
to have been poisoned per Halotum spadonem Praegustatorem (Suetonius in 
Claud, cap. 44). This year an inscription has been found at Cervetri begin- 
ning thus: M. Claudis Aug. lib. Praegustator triclinar. proc. a muneribus 
proc. aquar. proc. castrensis. As men have sometimes sacrilegiously mixed 
poison with the bread and wine used at mass, the Ceremoniale Episcoporum 
prescribes that when a bishop sings mass, they should be tasted first by the 
Credentarii, or butlers, and afterAvard by the sacristan, Lambert, an old writer 
quoted by Fleury says that a sub-deacon attempted to poison Pope Victor II. 
at mass. A Dominican friar was falsely accused of having poisoned the 
emperor Henry VII. at mass. Gonzoles de Castiglio, an Augustinian friar, was 



112 WORSHIPING A POISONED WAFER 

poisoned at the altar, by a widow in 1479. Unhappily, even in our own times, 
this abominable sacrilege has been attempted.'" (Dublin, Roman Catholic 
Calendar, p. 146.) 

Now on this fact we observe: — 

1. That persons have been poisoned by the host. They were taught to 
believe, on pain of damnation, that the Host was God. Imx)licitly acknov 
ledging this dogma, they received the ^Yafer and were poisoned. 

2. Whenever a bishop sings mass, the Ceremoniale Episcoporum pre- 
scribes that the proba shall be used; which shows still further the great 
uncertainty of Rome on this point. 

3. The Church of Rome has more regard for the bodies of the popes 
and bishops than for the bodies or souls of the people. When life is en- 
dangered by the admixture of poison with the bread and wine, a precaution 
is adopted for the preservation of His Holiness and the bishops, but there 
is no safeguard against the peril of idolatry; the people may worship the 
unconsecrated wafer and there is no help! 

4. Rome, with all her great pretensions to infallibility and certainty can 
not assure her members that the host, which they worship as God, is not 
a poisoned cake. 

5. One of the leading objects, if not the great object of religion, is the 
worship of God; but that object is so perverted by the Church of Rome that 
the Host, which she adores as God in her most solemn service, the Mass, 
may according to her own admission be a poisoned wafer. 

6. She is guilty of wilful sin in this mat-ter. She is aware of the defects 
which may occur by want of intention on the part of the priest, and of the 
due performance of numerous ceremonials; yet she requires her people, in 
every case, to w^orship it as God. The priest elevates the Host, and they 
fall down and adore it as *'God over all"! 

An infallible Church, even according to her own principles, can not 
assure her members that the object of her worship is not poisoned cake! 

This ordinance was instituted in remembrance of Christ, and that therein 
we "do show the Lord's death till He come" (1 Cor. 11:26.) If the Host be 
Christ Himself, it is not a remembrance of the thing signified, but it is the 
very thing itself. 

The apostle says, ' ' Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the 
flesh, yea,, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth 
know we Him no more" (2 Cor. 5:16.) (Blakeney.) 

The Senses and Transubstantiation 

It subverts the evidence upon w^hich all human belief and Christianity 
itself rest. All our knowledge is ultimately derived through the senses, which 
are five — sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. Were it not for the 
senses the Apostles, and we ourselves, could know nothing of Christ. They 
saw and heard Him. They appeal to the senses as the highest evidence (See 
1 John 1-3). lu Acis 1:3, tne senses are referred to as infallible evidence, 
''To whom also He showed himself alive after His passion by many infallible 
proofs, being seen of them forty days ' '. 



A MJKACLE APPEAr.8 TO THE ;SEN8E8 lU 

Rome claims that a mighty miracle takes place every time the bread and 
the wine are consecrated by the priest. But this miracle is directly opposite 
in character to the miracles which our Lord wrought while on earth. When 
He performed a miracle the result was always such as men could take direct 
cognizance of through their senses. They saw and tasted the wine which He 
made out of water. They saw and ate the bread which He multiplied from 
the few loaves and fishes. They saw lame men leap and walk. They saw the 
eyes of the blind were opened. They saw the dead rising to a new life and 
walking about, visible to the eyes of all. But Rome demands that her members 
shall believe that a miracle has taken place, even though the senses testify 
that the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine. In order to answer 
this objection, Rome teaches that the substance of the bread and wine are 
converted into the body and blood of Jesus, but the accidents, such as the 
qualities which may be recognized by the taste, touch or sight, remain the same 
as before. This is one of Rome's ingenious inventions by which she deceives 
and dupes the millions. One of the essential characteristics of genuine Bible 
miracles is that the transformation that has been wrought must appeal to 
the senses, thus becoming the credentials as to the divine approval of the 
messenger through whom the miracle was wrought. But far more real and 
gracious are the spiritual transformations wrought in the souls of those who 
by a living faith receive Him Whose death is shown fortli in the ordinance 
of His own appointment. 

QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

According to Scripture, is our Lord now bodily absent or present? 

What did the Jewish law teach with reference to the use of blood? 

Will our Lord come bodily at his second appearance? 

Was the body of Jesus permitted to see corruption or humiliation? 

If Transubstantiation be true, is His body subjected to both corruption 
and humiliation? 

What does Rome teach emphatically about the necessity of right intention > 

According to the Roman Missal, what are some of the defects that may 
occur in the celebration of M^ass? 

What defects may occur in the bread? In the wine? 

What defects may occur in the forms? In the minister? What defects 
may occur as to intention, or disposition of soul? 

What defects may occur through indisposition of the body? 

What defects may occur in the ministration of the sacraments? 

Why does the Pope of Rome require the bread and wine to be tested 
before he will partake of it? 

What examples of poisoning through use of the host are cited? 

What does this necessarily teach concerning the change of the substance 
df the wafer? 

If such a change truly occurs, would there be any such danger of poisonings 

What testimony of th® senses does trjtnsubstantiation contradict? 



114 "THE MASS THAT MATTERS' 



liESSON XVI 



THE MASS 



"I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper 
and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most 
holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are really, and substantially, the body 
and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. ' ' 
(Article V. Creed of Pope Pius IV.) 



A common saying among Romanists is, ''It is the Mass that matters". 
The entire Roman system of belief and practice would fall to the ground if 
the faith of her subjects in reference to the validity of the Mass were over- 
thrown. The doctrine of the Mass is founded, as we have seen upon the doc- 
trine of Transubstantiation. If that has been disproven, then Rome 's asser- 
tions concerning the Mass are also groundless. There would of necessity go 
with it all her teachings in reference to Purgatory, for the supposed power 
of the priest to deliver from that place of disciplinary punishment rests upon 
the supposition that the priest has a true sacrifice to offer for the souls of 
the dead, and this sacrifice he offers when he says "Mass". 

Here is the declaration of the Council of Trent in reference to the 
sacrificial character of the Lord's Supper: 

"And since in this divine sacrifice, which is performed in the Mass 
the same Christ is contained, and is bloodlessly immolated, who once offered 
Himself bodily upon the cross; the holy council teaches that this sacrifice 
is truly propitiatory, and that by its means, if we approach God, contrite 
and penitent^ with a true heart, and a right faith, and with fear and rever- 
ence, we may obtain mercy, and obtain grace in seasonable succor. For the 
Lord, appeased by the oblation of this sacrifice, granting grace and, the gift 
of repentance, remits even great crimes and sins. There is oiie and the same 
victim, and the same person, who now offers by the ministry of the priests, 
who then offered Himself upon the cross; the mode of offering only being 
different. And the fruits of that bloody offering are truly most abundantly 
received through this offering, so far is it from derogating in any way from 
the former. Wherefore it is properly offered according to the apostolic tradi- 
tion, not only for the sins, pains, satisfactions, and other wants of the faith- 
ful who are alive, but also- for the dead in Christ who are not yet fully purged. ' ' 
(Canons of Trent, Sess. 22.) 

This canon teaches, (1) That the same Christ is contained in the. Mass 
who was offered on the cross; (2) that the Mass is an unbloody offering;- (3) 
truly propitiatory; (4) and offered for the dead who are not yet fully purged 
as well as for the living. 

That ,this is still the corner stone of Romish teaching is apparent from 
the following quotation from "The Catholic Faith," a compendium authorized 
by the late Pope Pius X: "The Eucharist, besides being a sacrtmient, is 



ORIGIN OF THE WORD "MASS" 115 

also a permanent sacrifice of the new law, and was left by Jesus Ohrist tn 
His Church to be offered to God by the Jiands of His priests. A sacrifice 
generally consists in offering something sensible to God, and in destroying it 
in such a way as to acknowledge His supreme dominion over us and all things. 
This sacrifice under the new law is called Holy Mass, which is the sacrifice 
of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, offered on our altars under the species 
of bread and wine in memory of the sacrifice of the cross. The sacrifice of 
the Mass is substantially that of the Cross, in as far as -the same Jesus Christ 
who off'ered Himself on the Cross, is He who offers Himself by the hands 
of the priests, His ministers, on our altars; but as to the manner of its offer, 
the sacrifice of the Mass differs from the sacrifice of the Cross, only retaining 
the most intimate and essential connection with the latter. The difference 
and connection between them is this: That on the cross Jesus Christ offered 
Himself by shedding His blood a id b}'' meriting for us, while on the altar 
He sacrifices Himself without shedding His blood, and applies to us the 
fruits of His passion and death." 

It may be asked how this name came to be applied to the Sacrament 
of the Lord 's Supper. J. Pohle, in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1914) says. 
' * The word Mass first established itself as the general designation of the 
Eucharist sacrifice in the West after the time of Pope Gregory the Great, 
(died 604), the early Church having used the expression "' the breaking of 
bread' for 'liturgy' (Acts 13:2 ''ministered"). The Greek Church has em- 
ployed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries. Etymologically the 
word 'missa' is neither from the Hebrew 'Miscah', nor from' the Greek 'Musis', 
but is simply derived from 'Missio'. The reference is not to a divine 'mis- 
sion ' but simply to a ' dismissal ' as is still echoed in the phrase Ite missa est. 
Mtssi est is said when the people are released from attendance. Popular speech 
gradually applied the ritual of dismissal to the entire Eucharistic sacrifice." 
That is, from the mere circumstance of the priest dismissing the congrega- 
tion with these words, the term 'Mass', w-hich is a corruption of 'Missa', 
came to be applied through the ordinance which we know as the Lord 's Sup- 
per, but w^hich Rome has so sadly perverted. 

In support of her doctrine that the I^ord 's Supper is to be considered 

as a sacrifice, not a memorial, every time it is celebrated, Rome cites first 

the words used by our Lord at the institution of this sacrament. From "The 

Grounds of Catholic Doctrine" we quote the follow'ing question and answer: 

"Q. What Scripture do you bring for this? 

"A. The words of consecration as they are related by St. Luke 22:19, 
20. ' This is My body which is given for you. ' ' This is the chalice, the new- 
Testament in My blood w^hich shall be shed for you. ' If the cup be shed 
for us, that is, for our sins, it must needs be a propitiatory, at least by applying 
to us the fruits of the bloody sacrifice of the cross. ' ' 

To this we reply, first, that this passage is mistranslated in the Douai 
Version. Christ did not say, "Shall be shed," but "is shed" for you. 
Romanists expositors find themselves in a dilemma in reference to these dif- 
ferent translations. If the future tense is correct, then there was no sacri- 
'fice at the time when our Lord instituted the Supper, but was yot to be 



116 MALACHI 'S PREDICTION CONCERNING OFFERINGS 

offered- Mr. Browne, a Roman Catholic priest, in a discussion on tliis sub- 
ject adopted the present tense as the proper translation, "is shed", in order 
to show that at the last Supper there was a victim and a sacrifice. But the 
Vulgate, or Latin Version, the only version which Rome has authorized, 
uses the future tense. 

Another text that is often quoted of the Mass is found in Malachi 1:11; 
^^From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, shall 
My name be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be 
offered unto My name and a pure offering. ' ' 

The clear meaning of this prediction is that such spiritual sacrifices as 
prayer, praise, obedience, a broken and contrite heart would be offered to 
God in the days of the Gospel dispensation. There are numerous examples 
in Scripture of such uses of the terms oblation or sacrifice, incense, etc. 
**The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, 
O God, Thou would not despise" (Psalm 51:17). "Let my prayer be set 
forth as incense before Thee, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacri- 
fice" (Psalm 141:2). Thus even in Old Testament times, when literal sac- 
rifices were still being offered, these terms were often used to denote the 
spiritual exercises of the soul. Paul uses this figure in the same sense when 
he says in Romans 12:1, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice". In He- 
brews 13:15, we are exhorted, "Let us offer up the sacrifice of praise to 
God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips", which make confession to His 
name. We are also exhorted "To do good and to communicate forget not; 
for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. ' ' 

The Church Fathers so understood and used the figure of sacrifice. Chry- 
sostom says: "Through Him we offer a sacrifice to God. What sacrifice 
does he mean? He himself has explained saying. The fruit of the lips, which 
confess His name, that is, prayers, hymns, thanksgiving. These are the fruit 
of the lips. They offered sheep and calves and gave to the priests, but we 
offer none of these things, but thanksgiving and the imitation of Christ in 
all things as far as possible". 

Romanists also refer to Genesis 14:18 and Melchizedek, King of Salem, 
brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest of the Most High God. 
The words translated, ' ' And he was the priest of the Most High God, ' ' they 
render, "For he was the priest", etc. This translation is substituted in order 
to show that he brought forth bread and wine in his oflicial capacity. This 
is plainly a mistranslation. The priest did not bring forth bread and wine 
as - a sacrificial act, but to refresh Abraham and his men. The apostle, in 
his epistle to the Hebrews, describing the character and conduct of Mel- 
chizedek, says nothing about sacrifice. 

The Mass Contrary to Scripture 

1. Negative Scriptural Arguments Against the Mass. The very absence 
of Scripture testimony for the Mass is evidence against it. The priests of 
the Church of Rome lay claim to a high otfice and great powers; but the 
higher their profession, the clearer should be their credentials. 

If they are appointed to offer propitiatory sacrifices to God, of elements 



THE APOSTLES NOT SACRIFICING PRIESTS 117 

consecrated by them and converted- into the literal body of Christ, we ask 
them to shoxv their authority. The very want of such authority would be 
valid ground upon which to reject their claims, had w-e even no positive argu- 
ments against their assumptions. 

(1) We appeal to the commission given by Christ to His Apostles; (2) 
To the directions which are given by the Apostles to the first ministers of 
the Gospel; and, (3) To the account which is recorded of the assemblies of 
Christians for worship; and we find no trace of a sacrificial priesthood, or 
literal aaerifice. 

1. The Apostles not Sacrificing Priests 

Christ said to His apostles: ''Go ye therefore, make disciples of all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 1 have commanded 
you: and lo, I am with yon alway, even imto the end of the Avorld. Amen'' 
fMatt. 28:19, 20). 

Here there is not one word about sacrifice. ■ 

We know that the sacerdotal or sacrificial character is the great char- 
acteristic of the Roman priesthood. In the ordination service, they are ad- 
dressed as follows: 

"Receive thou powder to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate masses, 
both for the living and for the dead. In the name of the Lord. Amen" 
(Roman Pontificial, first part). 

It cannot for one moment be supposed that Christ recognized any such 
characteristie in the Apostles, and yet observed silence upon that leading 
point. He commanded them to preach the Gospel, but not to sacrifice. 

Indeed, the office of a sacrificing priesthood can have no existence under 
the Gospel dispensation. This is evident from the argument of the Apostle 
in the 7th chapt^er of his Epistle to the Hebrews. Contrasting the priest- 
hood of the Jews with that of Christ he gives three reasons for the cessation 
of the former, on the appearance in the flesh of the Son of God, who is 
the "Apostle and high Priest of our profession" (Heb. 3:1). These reasons 
apply with equal force against the Romish priesthood. 

"They truly were many priests (in succession) because they were not 
suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man, because he continueth 

forever hath an unchangeable (or an untransferable) priesthood Who 

needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first, for His 
own sins, and then for the people's; for this He did once, when He offered 
up Himself. ' ' 

"The weakness and unprofitableness" of the Jewish priesthood were 
apparent from the facts, — 

(1) That they were many; (2) Because they needed to offer' up sacrifice 
for their own sins; (3) That they were men of infirmity. So the Romish 
priests are, (1) Many; (2) Their sacrifices are oft repeated; and (3) they 
are men of infirmity. But Christ offered one sacrifice and is consecrated for- 
evermore — "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher 
than the heavens. ' ' There is therefore no priest. In a spiritual sense every 



118 NO MINISTER OF CHRIST A SACRIFICING PRIEST 

l)elie^er is a priest. ''Ye are a chosen generation^ a royal priesthood" (.1 
Peter 2:9). In the sacrificial sense, under the Christian dispensation, there 
is none but Christ, the Apostle and high priest of our profession; and it is 
remarkable that the Greek word "hieros", meaning sacrifice priest, is no- 
where applied to ministers of the Gospel. The Romish priesthood have no 
commission from Christ to sacrifice. 

2. Apostles Did Not Commission Others to Offer Literal Sacrifice 

The Apostles, in founding the Church, gave many directions to ministers of 
the Word. 

Paul especially in his epistles to Timothj^ and Titus refers to the duties of 
the ministry. They are expected to give themselves to "reading, to exhorta- 
tion, to doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:13); how to conduct themselves in the house of 
God (1 Tim. 3:15); how to regulate their families (1 Tim. 3); to ''preach the 
Word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all 
long- suffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2). Many particulars are specified; but 
nowhere do we find even the most distant hint of sacrifice! The great business 
of the Romish priest is to offer, in the Mass, the body, blood, soul and deity 
of our Lord, which is accounted a service of most mysterious and awful import. 
Strange that if this were likewise the business of Timothy, Titus and the 
primitive ministers of the Gospel, no reference should be made to it in the 
Epistles written avowedly for the purpose of instructing them at large on all- 
important truth. 

3. Literal Sacrifice not a Part of Primitive Worship 

In the Acts of the Apostles we read of churches founded, sinners converted, 
miracles performed in the name of Jesus; of the assembling of Christians toge- 
ther, when the Word was preached and praj^er offered; of controversies with the 
votaries of error; of ceremonial binding and loosing, as in Acts 15. But nowhere 
do we find the most distant allusion to the sacrifice of the Mass. 

The Mass is the leading characteristic of Roman worship. Surely Roman- 
ism is not the system which the Apostles preached, for we nowhere read in 
their inspired record of such service. Contrast any Romish history of Ro- 
man missionaries with "the Acts of the Apostles;" and as in the former you 
will meet constant reference to the Mass,' but in the latter no such reference, 
you must feel convinced that Papal missionaries and the Apostles did not 
preach the same system. Reader! Just think of Paul and Barnabas, or Peter 
and Silas, offering High Mass at Jerusalem or Antioch! 

The Romish priests are therefore without authority from Scripture; but 
we go further and say that the Word of God distinctly disproves the existence 
of a literal sacrifice. 

Positive Scriptural Argument Against the Mass 

The Scriptures declare that there is but one sacrifice: "Who needeth not 
daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and 
then for the people's; for this He did once, Avhen He offered up Himself 
(Heb. 7:27.) 



THE PEEFECTIOX OF CHRIST'S SACRIFICE Hi) 

Romanists assert that the sacrifice of the Mass was instituted at, and 
commenced in, the Lord's Supper, and that, whenever that sacrament was ob- 
served, Christ was offered a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the 
livinf^ and the dead. 

If this were true, Christ must have been offered thousands of times be- 
tween the institution of the sacrament and the publication of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. But the notion is at once dissipated by the following statement 
of the Apostle: — "This He did once, when He offered up Himself." 

The Apostle reiterates this great truth, as if to warn us prophetically 
against the Romish dogma of the Mass. He says: 

"Nor yet that he should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth 
into the holy place every year with blood of others; (For then must He 
often have suffered since the foundation of the^ world;) but now once in the 
end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Him- 
self. And as it is appointed unto men one-e to die, but after this the judgment: 
so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that 
look for Him shall He appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation" 
(Heb. 9:25-28.) 

Here it is said, that as man once died, so Christ was "once offered." 
Such language is irreconcilable with the notion of Christ's continued sacrifice 
in the Mass. (Dr. Blakeney 's Manual of Romish Controversy.) 

The Rev. George Hamilton points out the differences between the Lord's 
Supper and the Mass in the following sixteen particulars: 

1. "Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke in a language which His disciples under- 
stood. But the Priest says Mass in Latin, which the people present do not 
understand. 

2. "Jesus Christ spoke in a loud, distinct voice, so as that the disciples 
heard Him. But the Priest mutters over in a low, secret whisper, what are 
called the words of consecration, so that no one present can hear or under- 
stand what he says. 

3 "Jesus Christ said, 'This chalice is the New Testament in My blood.' 
But the priest says that He said, 'This is the chalice of My blood of the New 
and Eternal Testament, mystery of the faith, ' which is not true. 

4. "Jesus Christ broke the bread, before He pronounced the word 'THIS 
IS MY BODY' which the Roman Catholics call the words of consecration, and 
by virtue of which they say, that the brearl is transubstantiated into the body 
of Christ. But the Priest pronounces theso words first, and then handles the 
Host to make the people think he breaks the body of Christ: so that if the 
pronouncing the words of consecration be what changes the bread into Christ's 
body, the bread our Lord broke was not so changed, and therefore was a 
different thing from the Host. 

5. "Jesus Christ gave the bread into the hands of the disciples. But 
the Priest puts the wafer into the mouth of each communicant himself. 

6. "Jesns Christ gave His disciples a cup of wine, saying, 'Drink ye 
all of this.' St. Paul said to the Corinthians, 'Let a man examine himself, and 
so let him eat of that bread and drink this chalice, ye shall show the Lord 's 
death until He come' (v. 26). So that it is as plain as possible that all present 
did drink as well as eat. But the Priest alone drinks the wine, the laity 
only eat the wafer. 

7. "Jesus Christ gave the disciples what the Scripture calls bread, and 
what was in the chalice He called wine, or the fruit of the vine. But the priest 
in the Mass ^ves the people what he says is not bread, but the body of Christ 
and drinks himself what he says is not wine but the blood of Christ. 

8. "Jesus Christ did not speak of any sacrifice being oft'ered to God in 
this ordinance which He then instituted. But the priest professes to offer in thr 
Mass the Body of Christ as a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. 



120 DIFFERPJNCES BETWEEN THE SUPPER AND THE MASS 

10. ''Jesus Christ said no prayers for the dead. But the priest prays 
for those who sleep the sleep of peace. Now this prayer must have been added 
to the Mass before Purgatory was invented, because if a soul is tormented in 
the fire of purgatory, it cannot be the sleep of peace; and if it is in heaven 
it has no need of prayers. 

11. ''Jesus Christ said nothing of saints or Angels. But the priest men- 
tions both, blessing the incense through Michael the Archangel, praying God 
to command an angel to carry the consecrated Host to heaven. 

12. "Jesus Christ said, 'Do this in remembrance of Me.' But the Priest 
says, ' solemnizing and communicating in the first place the remembrance of 
the glorious Mary, ever Virgin. ' 

13. "Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament as a remembrance of His 
death and suffering, whereby remission of sin is granted to those who believe 
on His name. But the Priest says Mass for the purpose of obtaining from God 
some temporal blessing as the cure of a sick person, or of sick cattle, preserva- 
tion of the crops from the frost or blight; and thus there are many kinds of 
Masses; as the Mass of St. Giles, of St. Francis, St. Catherine, and others; 
there are also loud Masses and low Masses, great Masses and small Masses, 
day Masses, episcopal Masses; Masses in white, in green, in violet, and all 
other colors. 

14. "Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament after supper, but the priest 
says Mass fasting. 

15. "Jesus Christ says nothing about the Cross on which He was to die. 
But the priest in the Mass on Good Friday, which is called the Mass of the 
pre-sanctified. says to the people, 'Behold the wood of the Cross, come let us 
worship;' and an anthem sung on that day contains these w^ords, 'We worship 
Thy cross, O Lord;' and speaking to the Cross they say, 'faithful Cross, the 
only noble among the trees. ' 

16. ' ' Jesus Christ did not command the bread to be carried in procession, 
or say what was to be done with the crumbs. But the priest carries the 
Host in procession, in all places where the Roman Catholic Religion is estab- 
lished. There is a canon in their Church, to tell what is to be done when a 
mouse eats or bites the body of Christ; and another to direct what is to be 
done when it is lost or carried away by the wind; another orders the Priest 
to swallow a tly, or spider, if it falls into the cup, unless it turns his stomach; 
and that if the blood freeze in winter, to wrap the chalice in hot cloths. But 
the most notable one is that w^hich directs that if the priest be sick, and 
throw the wafer off his stomach, he should, if possible, swallow it again! 

' ' Here are sixteen particulars, in which the celebration of Mass contra- 
dicts the institution of the Sacrament by our Lord Himself; and we can here 
see that the Church of Rome has, without any authority from the Scriptures, 
altered £ome things, left out some things, and added some things, so as to 
make the Mass quite different from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and 
to prove plainly that no Romanist has ever yet received this Sacrament. He 
has never commemorated the shedding of Christ's blood for the remission of 
sins, for he never drank of the sacramental cup. He never commemorated 
Christ in this ordinance for he is taught to commemorate the Virgin Mary; 
and he never could understand what the priest said in many of the praj^ers, 
because they were in Latin. The service he attends is not founded on the 
Scriptures, but on the commands of the Church, and let him recollect that 
Christ has said, 'In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men.' (Matt. 15)." 

One morning the writer attended a service in the church of the Madelein, 
Paris, named after Mary Magdalene. It was the hour of high mass. As I 
looked upon the endless forms and ceremonies, the bowings and genuflexions, 
the burning of candles and incense, the mumbling of prayers in a dead lan- 
guage, etc., I could not but feel that if the Mary after whom that building- 
was named were to come to it in person she would be compelled to say once 
more, as she said in the garden, "Thej' have taken away my Lord, and I 
know not where they have laid Him." 

One Saturday afternoon in the autumn of 1904, a visitor entered the 



THE ALTAR A SYMBOL OF DEATH 121 

Roman Cathednd at Wostniinster, London. Xoar one end of the nia«^nificent 
building was a huge block of granite, of ^nne twenty tons in weight, destined 
to be the high altar, but not yet dedicated to that intended object. As the 
visitor looked upon this immense block, a priest in cassock and biretta made 
his way to the stage a few steps behind and then turned to survey the vast 
space before him, as if in vision he beheld the future crowds who would come 
to worship in the Cathedral. The visitor quickly made his way towards him, 
and in a moment or two was at his side. The first remark was of the immense 
building they had erected, to which he assented with manifest satisfaction. 
"And that," said the visitor "is, or will be, the high altar at which High 
Masses will be said." "Yes," he replied. "Would you permit me to ask you 
one or two questions by way of inquiry?" The priest assented. "I believe 
it is the teaching of your Church, that after the words of consecration uttered 
by the priest, the substance of the wafer bread undergoes an absolute change 
and becomes substantially the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
An invisible miracle takes place, so that under the outward forms of bread 
and wine it is Christ Himself who is present on your altars?" "That is so," 
he replied. "You do really and truly believe that the very same Christ 
who lived on this earth. 1800 years ago and died upon a cross on Calvary, 
is present in person on the altar after the wafer has undergone the process 
of consecration by. a priest — that the priest really holds Christ Himself in 
his hands?" "Yes," the priest answered. "We touch and handle Him, 
just as I am touching you, ' ' he said, placing his hand at the same moment 
upon the stranger's coat-sleeve. "You mean to say, "that Christ is present, 
under the form of the wafer, as truly as my arm is under the sleeve of my 
coat?." "Yes," said he. "Well that is not my faith, but I am not wishing 
to discuss that matter now. Assuming, for the moment, it is as you affirm, 
and the dogma of transubstantiation to be true, the question I was wishing to 
ask you is this: When you have the Lord Jesus Christ upon your altars, and 
actually in your hands, then what do you do with Him? Do you profess to 
put Him to death?" His answer was, "Yes." "You profess to slay Him. 
to immolate and kill Jesus Christ upon your altars?" 

The priest gave the impression, the narrator adds, of being taken off his 
guard, or rather Rome has no guard at this vital point of her system, or 
he might have evaded my question. I had taken him on a high tide of feeling. 
Did not Rome's colossal cathedral in which we stood, with the most magnificent 
pageants of her cult, stand upon and centre in the dogma of the Mass? Does 
not the very word by which the wafer is known after consecration, "The 
Host," from the Latin hostia — a victim, signify one who has been immolated? 
Does not the term Altar denote a Victim offered in sacrifice; and what other 
victim suffers on Roman altars, according to Rome's dogma, but Christ? But 
again, does not the Apostle also speak of those who "crucify the Son of God 
afresh and put Him to an open shame?" What does such language point at? 
And, says the same Apostle, they do it "to themselves" (Heb. vi. (i.) They 
speak of "the Adorable Sacrament of our altars." They proclaim aloud to 
the world (to quote their own Avords) "oar unswerving belief in the central 
mystery of our religion, the fact that our Lord and Saviour. .Tesus Christ, true 



122 CRUCIFYING THE SON OF GOD AFRESH 

God and true Man, ever oifers Himself" (i. e., is offered by our priests') 
"as sacrifice upon the altar of our churches, and unceasingly dwells in our 
tabernacles. "(Archbishop Bourne's Pastoral.) He who died once for all, for 
the sins of the whole world, is thus put to death daily, if the dogma of 
transubstantiation will hold, in the interests of a sect, and for the sole benefit 
of its adherents, from which benefits all "non-Catholics," so they teach (that 
is, six-sevenths of the human race), are excluded. 

Let us be thankful that St. Peter, who instrumentally opened the Kingdom 
of Heaven to all men, and St. Paul, whose commission was "to every creature 
under heaven" (Col. 1:23), never preached a "gospel" so uncatholic, sectarian, 
and exclusive. 

The priest had entered upon the conversation evidently under the im- 
pression that my purpose was to argue the question of transubstantiation, 
for to this he reverted. "We believe," he went on to say, "that the sacri- 
fice of the Mass is the very same sacrifice as that offered on Calvary; that," 
said he, indicating the huge block of cold gray stone, "is our Calvary." 
"And you," I said, "that is, the priests of your -Church, put Christ to death 
there?" "Yes," he said, but there was this time a tone of hesitation in his 
word. I replied: "Well, I felt that the doctrine of the Mass must involve 
that conclusion, but was not prepared to hear it openly avowed as you have 
done. You remember who they were who crucified Christ?" "The Jews," 
he replied. "And the Romans," I added. "Then the priests of your Church, 
who repeat in the Mass the very sacrifice of Calvary, are the successors of the 
Jews and the Romans. ' ' At this point he seemed to lose assurance and began 
to flounder. ' ' Oh, ' ' said he, ' * the Jews were the instruments. " " And 
you," I asked, "what are you?" "Oh, but we don't put Him to death 
really. We haven't His glorified body — that is in heaven. We do it as far 
as we can." "You do it as far as you can; you w^ould do more if you 
"iJouM?" I queried. "It is a representation," he said. "Then, if it is only 
a representation, it is not a reality. Why not then tell the people this and 
say: Good people, this ceremony of the Mass is our way of representing the 
death of Jesus Christ upon the cross?" "No, no," he exclaimed. "It is a 
reality. We believe that after transubstantiation Christ is really upon the 
altar under the outward forms of the species — as we say, in propria persona. ' ' 
I said again: "Whether the miracle of transubstantiation does or does not 
take place, is not just now my point. I know your dogma asserts Christ to be 
really there, 'His flesh, bones, nerves, and divinity,' under the forms of 
bread and wine, according to the catechism of the Council of Trent, from 
which their own substances have disappeared. My point, I repeat once more, 
is, when you have Christ thus upon your Calvary, what becomes of Him ? AVhat 
do you do with Him? Do you put Him to death?" Again the answer was 
"Yes!" "Then, I afifirm, that upon your own showing, by your own words, 
your priests prove themselves the successors not of the Apostles, as they 
claim toibe, but the successors and representatives of the Jews and Romans." 
"No, it is a representation," rejoined the priest. "You must forgive me," 
I replied, "if I say you seem in a fog about this subject. A thing cannot be 
at once merely a representation of a reality and the reality itself. Either it is 



THE BLEEDING WAFER li>. 

a real sacrifice of Jesus Christ that you immolate on your altars, or it is no 
sacrifice at all. If you profess to put Jesus Christ to death in the sacrifice 
of the Mass, you crucify Him afresh, and thus declare yourselves the successors 
to those whom St. Peter himself charged with the crime * of killing the Prince 
of life' (Acts ill. 15), and St. Stephen branded as 'His betrayers and mur- 
derers.' But, "I continued, " 'Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no 
more, death hath no more dominion over Him'; therefore your dogma of a 
repeated sacrifice of Christ in the Mass is a false one." By this time the 
priest had become very uncomfortable, and as I said the words: "Your position 
cannot stand, it must fall, and Rome with it," he abruptly quitted me and 
hastily disappeared through a door at the back of the tribune. 

Subsequently to this conversation in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Lon- 
don, I stood in the Vatican, the Papal palace, in Rome, in one of the halls 
known as the Stanze, atttentively observing a picture said to be the most 
perfect of Raphael's frescoes with respect to execution. Its subject is "The 
Mass of Bolsena." The central object of the picture is a consecrated wafer, 
from which blood is oozing and dropping down. On one side is the priest 
who had consecrated it, but was sceptical upon the mighty change which 
made it no longer bread but Jesus Christ in person. And the miracle, so the 
tradition runs, was to convince him of the fact. Kneeling in adoration at the 
other side, and looking on with calm equanimity, is the Pope, Julius II., while 
the figure of Cardinal Raffaelo Riario, with women and children below, com- 
pletes the picture. The guide book I held in my hand recounts the story thus: 

/'The Miracle of Bolsena, the subject of a celebrated fresco by Raphael 
in the Vatican, occurred in 1263. A Bohemian priest, who was somewhat 
skeptical as to the doctrine of transubstantiation, was convinced of its truth 
by the miraculous appearance of drops of blood on the host which he had 
just consecrated. In commemoration of this. Pope Urban IV. instituted the 
festival of Corpus Domini. ' ' The festival of Corpus Domini or Corpus Christi 
(i. e., of Christ's body) has therefore its origin directly from this miracle. 
The chief feature of the festival instituted to popularize the miracle, is "the 
procession of the Host," i. e., the procession of The Victim of the priests. 

It was in 1215 that Rome formally decreed the dogma of Transubstantia- 
tion, and fifty years later, while this dogma was over-riding human sense and 
intelligence, the miracle takes places which was to give it its supernatural 
consecration and sanction. A wafer composed of flour and water, baked in 
the oven, becomes under priestly consecration, a bleeding Christ, ' ' a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice offered up to God for the living and the dead." The Mass 
of Bolsena, the fresco in the Vatican, the affirmation of the priest at West- 
minster are three witnesses which agree in one. Thus in every Roman Mass 
is Christ professedly put to death. In this character it stands the direct 
opposite and antithesis of Holy Communion. Communion is the Feast of the 
living, the Mass is a Sacrifice of the dead. (From Leaflet on the Roman Mass, 
Bible House, Los Angeles.) 

We do not believe in the Roman Mass because we know that our Lord 
Jesus offered a perfect sacrifice upon the cross of Calvary, and there remaineth 
no more sacrifice for sin. But have we availed ourselves of the sacrifice 
which He has made on our ]»ehalf ? What will it avail us if a fountain for 



124 THE BLOOD OF CHRIST UPON ALL 

sin has been opened througli the blood of the Redeemer, if we do not wash in 
that fountain? What will it signify to us that all who are cleansed by 
His blood will stand Avitli the white-robed multitude before the 
throne of God and of the Lamb^ if we continue to neglect to seek the 
cleansing efficiency of that blood. We may have correct theories about God's 
way of washing away sins, but mere theory is not enough. ' We must avail 
ourselves of the gracious offers made in the Gospel, or we shall not be able to 
stand. The Jews said, "His blood be upon us.'' The blood of Jesus is 
upon every one who hears the gospel either in one sense or another. Upon 
all who take refuge behind the sprinkled blood of the Lamb of God, there 
will be eternal security. But upon those who reject or neglect this gracious 
provision for the cleansing of our souls, His blood will rest to their eternal 
condemnation. In which sense is the blood of Jesus Christ upon you? 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What is the declaration concerning the Mass in Article V. of the Romish 
Creed? 

What place does the Mass hold in the Romish system? 

What did the Council of Trent declare as to the sacrificial character of 
the Lord's Supper? 

What four articles of faith are included in this statement? 

What is the statement of "The Catholic Faith" endorsed by Pius Xf 

What is the origin of the word "Mass?" 

What mistranslation of Luke 22:20 is used as an argument in favor of the 
sacrificial character of the Supper? 

Into what dilemma does this translation lead Rome's supporters? 

What text in Malachi 1 is also used by them? 

To what kind of incense and offering does this prediction evidently refer? 

What mistranslation of Gen. 14:18 is perverted into an argument for the 
Mass? 

Does Christ's commission to the apostles authorize the offering of sacri- 
fice? 

Would He have remained silent on this matter if He had intended it to 
be a part of their offering? 

What is the great argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews in reference to 
Christ's priesthood? 

Did the apostle ever commission others to oft'er literal sacrifices? 

Was the offering of such sacrifices any part of primitive Christian worship? 

What do the Scriptures positively teach as to the sufficiency and fidelity 
of Christ's sacrificial words? 

What points of difference did Rev. George Hamilton point out between 
the Lord's Supper as instituted by Christ and the Romish Mass? 

Why is the Roman altar a symbol of death rather than of life? 

In what sense do Romish priests "crucify the Lord afresh"? 



THREE LINK8 IN AN ENSLAVING CHAIN 125 



LESSON XVll 



PURGATORY 



Sixth Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

*'I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there- 
in detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful." ('*Ordo Admini- 
strandi Sacramenti, " p. 67, London, 1840.) 



In the above declaration we have the culminating article in a system 
of dogmas by which Rome holds millions of souls in benighted bondage. The 
fear of purgatorial tires is the lash by which Rome 's agents hold her to 
her teachings and requirements. Transubstantiation, the Mass and Purga- 
tory are three links in the chain which Rome has forged for the purpose 
of holding a multitude of souls in deepest, darkest servitude. If either link 
in this chain be broken, the captive is released. Rome claims the power 
to release from purgatory. In order to present an appearance* of substanti- 
ating this claim, she must have a sacrifice to offer on behalf of the souls 
which she claims to be able to release. To supply this lack, she invented the 
dogma of transubstantiation and the Mass. By the former she claims the 
power to transform by the word of a mortal, sinful being, a morsel of bread 
into the body and soul and divinity of the Son of God; in the Mass she 
offers this creature of her own hands as a sacrifice for the liberation of 
the souls in torment. Thus these three parts of her systems are inseparably 
related and all must stand or fall together. 

These three parts of her Creed enable Rome to ply the most stupendous 
and sacrilegious system of graft the world has ever known. Men of previous 
high standing have been made to languish behind prison walls and to live 
and die under a cloud of reproach because they have accepted gold from 
those whom they could unlaw^fully serve while in official positions. But for 
centuries the members of the Roman hierarchy have been trafficing unlaw- 
fully in the souls of their fellow men, demanding and receiving gold for 
w^hich they are able to give no equivalent. They claim to be- able to re- 
lease souls from purgatory, yet they are never able to give the friends of 
the departed any positive information that their efforts have been, successful. 

The follow^ing experience was related some years ago in the New York 
Observer, which in its essential features is being repeated in the lives of 
multitudes of Rome's subject year by year: 

''A respectable man in our parish died in mid-life, leaving a widow and 
a large family of children to mourn his loss. True to her religious princi- 
ples, and to her generous instincts, the widow had her husband 's name placed 
on the list, and heard, with pious gratitude, his name read over from Sab- 
bath to Sabbath, with a prayer offered for the deliverance of his soul from 
purgatory. After the lapse of two or three years, on a certain Sabbath, the 
name of her husband was omitted from the list. The fact filled her with 



126 TEACHINGS CONCERNING PURGATORY 

mingled joy and fear; joy, thinking that her husband had escaped from 
purgatory; and fear, lest she had done something to offend the priest. On 
timid inquiry she learned that his soul was yet in purgatory, but that she 
had forgotten to send in the yearly tax at the time it was due. The tax 
was promptly paid, and the name was restored on the next Sabbath. With 
this fact, sir, I am entirely conversant; for that widow was my own mother, 
who sought the release of the soul of iny father from purgatory. Can you 
wonder, sir, that this incident made a deep impression upon my youthful 
mind, or that it shook my faith in your whole system? And, as far as my 
memory serves me, Father M. was an amiable man, and above the ordinary 
level of the men of his calling. ' ' 

Rome's Teaching Concerning Purgatory 

The Council of Trent declares, that there is a place of punishment called 
Purgatory, and that souls confined therein, are assisted by the prayers of 
the faithful. (Session 25.) 

The mass is said to be offered for those in Purgatory, as well as the liv- 
ing. (Fifth Article of the Creed of Pope Pins IV.) 

The Council of Trent has not defined the nature of purgatorial tor- 
ment; bat the Catechism of that Council declares, that it is by fire, in the 
following passage: — 

' * Besides, there is a purgatorial fire in which the souls of the pious 
make expiation for a certain period, that an entrance may be opened for 
them into that eternal country where nothing that defileth can enter." (Cat- 
echism on the Fifth Articles of the Creed.) 

''The Grounds of Catholic Doctrine" says: — 

"Q. — What is the doctrine of the Church as to this point? 

"A. — rWe constantly hold, that there is a Purgatory; and that the souls 
therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. That is by 
the prayers and alms offered for them, and principally by the holy sacri- 
fice of the Mass. 

MQ.- — What do you mean by Purgatory? 

"A. — A middle state of souls, who depart this life in God's grace, yet 
not without some lesser stains or gailt or punishment which retard them from 
entering heaven. But as to the particular place where these souls suffer, 
or the qualit}^ of the torments which they suffer, the Church has decided 
nothing. 

*'Q. — W^hat sort of Christians then go to Purgatory? 

''A. — 1st. Such as die guilty of lesser sins, which we commonly call 
venial; as many Christians do, who either, by sudden death or otherwise are 
taken out of this life before they have repented for these ordinary failings. 

* ' 2ndly. Such as have been formerly guilty of greater sins, and have 
not mafle full satisfaction for them to Divine Justice." (P. 34. Dublin, 1838.) 

From these authorities we learn — 1. That, according to the Council of 
Trent, Purgatory is a place of- torment; 2. According to the Catechism of 
the same Council, a place of fiery torment; 3. That Purgatory is designed 



VENIAL AND ^lORTAL SINS 127 

for the expiation of venial yiii. and tlie feiup(»ral puiiisliiiient due to trans- 
gression. 

Purgatory is based upon the supposed existence of venial sin. and the 
extension, to another world, of the temporal punishment of sin. 

We must therefore first consider the subject of venial sin. 

Romish Argument for Venial Sin 

''The Abridgement of Christian Doctrine" sets forth the views of the 
Church of Rome on this point, and the arguments which are urged in its 
favour: — 

"Q. — How is actual sin divided? 

' ' A. — Into mortal and venial. 

''Q. — What is mortal sin? 

"A. — Any great offence against the law of God; and is so called, be- 
cause it kills the soul, and robs it of the spiritual life of grace. 

'*Q.— What is venial sin? 

"A. — A small and very pardonable offence against God, or our neighbor. 

"Q. — How prove you that some sins are mortal? 

"A. — First, out of Romans 6:23, 'For the stipend of sin is death'. And 
verse 21, 'What fruit therefore, had you then in those things for which 
ye are now ashamed, for the end of them is death.' 

"Secondly, out of W^is. 16:14, 'For man, by malice, killeth his own soul'. 
And out of ■ Ezek. 18:4, 'The soul that sinneth, tlie same shall die. 

"Q. — How prove you that some sins are venial? 

"A. — First, out -of 1 John 1:8, where, speaking of such as walk in 
the light, and be cleansed from all mortal sin by the blood of Christ, he 
adds, 'If we will say we have not sin, we seduce ourselves, and the truth 
is not in us'. 

"Secondly, 'In many things we all offend'. (St. James 3:2.) And in 
Prov. 24:16. 'The just man falleth seven times'. Not mortally, for then 
he were no longer just, therefore venially. 

"Thirdly, out of St. Matt. 12:36, 'But I say unto you, every idle word 
which men shall speak, they shall render an account for it at the day of 
judgment '. Now, God forbid every idle w^ord should be a mortal sin. The 
just also in the Lord's prayer, say daily, 'Forgive us our trespasses'. " 
(P. 113. Dub. 1841.) 

The Duration of Purgatorial Sufferings 

"The teaching as to the duration of suffering in purgatory differs as 
widely and is as uncertain as that upon the nature of purgatorial punish- 
ment. The more cautions are indefinite. They last no doubt for very differ- 
ent lengths of time, and vary in intensity according to the need of individual 
cases.' It would be more truthful to say that, according to Rome's teach- 
ing, the duration varies according to the amount of masses that are paid 
for and the number of indulgences obtained by the use of scapulars, visits 
to certain shrines, and observance of litanies to the virgin, etc., by which 



128 THE DURATION OF PURGATORY 

the punishment of purgator}^ can be commuted and shortened. ''Thus be- 
fore the Reformation, indulgences were granted, according to an ancient book, 
'The House of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary,' for terms varying from a few 
weeks to ninety thousand years. It is due to the Reformation that these 
appalling features have been withdrawn, but the doctrine remains as real and 
deceiving as ever. ' ' There is more reticence in the modern teaching to pre- 
vent its revolting side from being so easily detected by Protestants. Thb 
duration is left indefinite and indulgences are multiplied. 

"Uncertainty prevails on every point of the doctrine. It, is not cer- 
tainly known who do and who do not go to purgatory. All martyrs are ex- 
cluded, yet it is known that many suffered martyrdom from obstinacy, and 
not from ipietj and grace. So those ' ' w^ho die free from sin and debt of 
temporal punishment" are exempted; but it is so impossible to discover 
such, that the doctrines of indulgences and intercessions are inculcated upon 
all. Then the deliverance is uncertain; the masses, prayers, and indulgences 
are offered by way of suffrage only — that is, it is a ransom offered, admit- 
tedly sufficient, but the application of which in this or that degree, to this 
or that person, is not covenanted, though confidently expected in answer to 
the Church's prayer". So Sixtus IV., in his Constitution of November 27th, 
1477; The Church has no direct power over the souls of the departed. She 
can but humbly entreat God to accept the merits of it, and having respect 
to them, mercifully to remit the whole or a portion of the pains due to the 
souls suffering in purgatory' " (Manual of Romish Controversy.) 

The Very Rev. Dean Kinane, in a book on ' ' Purgatory, Its Pains and 
Consolations," approved by several archbishops, says: 

"As to the duration, like the nature of the pains of purgatory, the 
Church has pronounced no judgment; hence there is a diversity of opinion 
among Saints and Writers. The writers who hold the austere opinion that the 
fire of Purgatory is of the same nature as the fire of hell are strong in 
defence of the long duration of the pains of Purgatory. Considering the 
infinite sanctity of God; and the almost infinite guilt of mortal sin, and 
the countless numbers of mortal sins; and hence the dreadful amount of 
temporal punishment to be atoned for before the soul is fit for the eternal 
glories of heaven; these writers hold that souls are detained in the purify- 
ing flames of Purgatory for many long years; and some souls even to the 
day of General Judgment. We insert a few quotations. St. Augustine asks 
prayers for his mother, St. Monica. In his Confession the Saint writes; 

"Do Thou inspire, O Lord, my God, do Thou inspire Thy servants, my 
brethren. Thy children, my Master 's, whom I serve with my voice and my 
heart, " and my writings, that as many as shall read this may remember 
Thy handmaid Monica, and Patricius, formerly her husband . . . That so what 
my mother made her last request to me may be plentifully performed foi 
her by the prayers of many procured by these my Confessions and my 
prayers. ' Twenty years after the death of St. Monica, her sainted son 
prayed for her soul, and recommended her to the future readers of his book. 
If this be true, as it is of two great Saints, the son and mother, what 
must not be the duration of Purgatory for the Mg sinner!- 



NO VENIAL SINS 1-!^ 

"St. Cyprian \vrit<^s: ' It is one thiiij; to receive iimuediatt'ly the re 
ward of faitl) and virtue ( ])y martyrdom), and anollier lliiii},' to be elean.sed 
by being- tormented by a lono pain for sins, and to be purj>ed b)ng by fire.' 

"St. Caesar of Aries also writes: 'Since it is written of the Day of 
Judgment that one day shall be as if a thousand years, and a thousand years 
as if one day, how does each one know wliether for days or months, or ])erhaps 
also even years, he may be about to pass through that fire?' 

"One passage from Bellarmine, Avho writes: 'There is no doubt that 
the pains of Purgatory are not limited to ten or twenty years, and that they 
last in some cases entire centuries. But allowing it to be true that their 
duration did not exceed ten or twenty years, can mc account it as nothing 
to have to endure for ten or twenty years the most excruciating sufferings 
without the least alleviation? If a man v,as assured that he should suffer 
some violent pain in his feet, or his head, or teeth, for the space of twenty 
years, and that without ever sleeping, or raking the least .repose, would he 
not a thousand times rather die than live in such a state. And if the choice 
were given to him between a life thus miserable and the loss of all his tempor- 
al goods, w^ould he hesitate to make the sacrifice of his fortune to be delivered 
from such torment? Shall we then have any difficulty in embracing labor 
and penance to free ourselves from the sufferings of Purgatory? Shall we 
fear to practise the most painful exercises,' vigils, fasts, almsgiving, long 
prayers, especially contrition, accompanied with sighs and tears." 
Objections to Rome's Teachings 

First, There is no Scriptural ground for Eome's classification of sin as 
mortal and venial. "The wages of sin is death'" (Eomans (i:23.) The 
instillation of the least amount of venom of the deadly cobra produces 
death, and sin in every form and phase alienates the soul from the life that 
is in God. The apostle Paul again declares," Cursed is everyone that con- 
tinueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do 
them" (Gal. 3:10.) To this James adds his testimony, "Whosoever shall 
keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 
2:10.) We are not to understand from such declarations that there are no 
degrees in guilt. Our Lord said to Pilate, "They that delivered Me unto 
you have the greater sin." Those who sin without law^ shall be beaten with 
few stripes, and those Avho sin in the face of God's gracious and loving- 
revelations shall be beaten with many stripes. There are many sins that are 
more heinous in the sight of God than others. Our Lord said that it shall 
be more tolerable for heathen cities in the day of Judgment than for those 
who heard His gospel and rejected it. But there is not a syllable in the 
whole Word of God that teaches that any sin is venial or trifling in the 
sight of God. "Every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life 
and that which is to come." 

Second, The Bible gives no countenance to the teaching that there is 
any other place of future punishment than the place of eternal torment 
reserved for all who die impenitent. Eome cites certain texts by which 
she endeavors to establish her doctrine of purgatorial fires, from which the 
sufferers may be delivered after satisfaction has been made. 



130 NO FORGIVENESS HEREAFTER 

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with 
him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge and the judge 
deliver thee to the officer and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, 
Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost 
farthing" (Matt. 5:25.) Romanists claim that these words of our Lord 
mean that it may be possible to satisfy the demands of God 's broken law 
through suffering in the future state, but the plain teaching of these words 
is that the debtor is cast into prison until he pay the uttermost farthing, 
and since he has nothing with which to pay his imprisonment must be for- 
ever. According to Rome's own interpretations, the use of the word "till" 
does not necessarily imply a definite or temporary confinement. The Douai 
Version, in its notes on Matthew 1:25, quotes various texts to show that 
it refers "to what is done without any regard to the future." These words 
of our Saviour simply emphatically declare that the punishment of the im- 
penitent and unft)rgiving will be eternal. 

(2) Another text often cited is found in Matthew 12:32: "Whosoever 
speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in 
this world nor in the world to come. ' ' A study of these words in the light 
of the parrallel passages — Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 — show that they are 
merely a strong mode of stating the truth that the one who sins against 
the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven. Besides, if according to this pas- 
sage sins are forgiven in Purgatory, how, according to Matthew 5:25, 26, 
would the uttermost be paid? If the debt is paid, it is not forgiven. Jerome 
says in reference to Matthew 5:26; "He will never come out, because he 
will always be paying the last farthing while he pays the eternal punishment 
of his sins. " 

(3) Another text cited by Rome in defence of purgatory is 1 Cor. 3: 
13-15: "Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall de- 
cla're it because it shall be revealed by fire, ' ' etc. In reference to this text 
note first, that the fire here spoken of tried; purgatory purifies. Also, it 
is said, "Every man's M'ork shall be tried." If this text refers to pur- 
gatory, it would prove that every man and woman must go there, which is 
not the doctrine of Rome, else saints might be there when they were invoked. 
Again the apostle says, * ' Every man 's work shall be made manifest. ' ' He 
refers alone to the work of Christ 's servants as builders of the Lord 's vis- 
ible temple. Works not persons are tried. If the work be found to be wood, 
hay and stubble, it shall be burned, but the worker shall be saved, yet "so 
as by fire ". 

(4) A fourth text much relied upon is first Peter 3:19; "By which 
also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." The plainest inter- 
pretation of this much disputed text is that" the apostle means that in the 
person of Noah, the preacher of righteousness, our Lord went to sinners 
in the days before the flood, to those who are now in prison, and gave them 
the offer of life if they would repent. There is no foundation for the be- 
lief that a second probation will be offered in the life to come. 

Third, the whole teaching of Rome in reference to the deliverance from 
purgatorial fires through the offering of masses, and ' ' the suffrages of the 



"TODAY SHAI/r THOU BE Willi ME" 131 

faithful" is contrary to the gospel teaching concerning the completeness of 
Christ's satisfaction for sins through His suffering upon the cross. "In 
whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, ac- 
cording to the richness of His grace." (Eph. 1:7.) "There is therefore 
now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus," (Romans 8:1.) 
"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is 
risen again, W^ho is even at the right hand of God, W^ho also maketh inter- 
cesion for us" (Romans .S::U). "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth 
us from all sin" (1 John 1:7.) "When He had by Himself purged our sins" 
(Heb. 1:3). When Christ purged oyr sins, was His work incomplete? When 
the apostle declares that His blood cleanseth from "all sin". Does some 
sin yet remain uncleansed? The voice from Heaven declares that the white 
robed throng have "washed their robes and made them white in the blood 
of the Lamb", does He leave an}' room for the doctrine that there is need 
of purgatorial fires to make the robes of the redeemed whiter than the blood 
of Jesus Christ has washed them? 

If anyone of the ransomed Avould need such purification, would it not 
have been the thief on the cross, who himself acknowledged that he was 
receiving the just reward of his deeds? Yet to him Jesus said, "Today 
shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:42.) Paradise means the 
the third heaven, Paul says in 2 Cor. 12:2 that he was caught up to the third 
heaven which in verse 4 he calls "paradise." The dying thief though 
crimsoned o'er with guilt, was made white in the blood of the Lamb, and went 
from the cross to the crown. 

Again the apostle Paul speaks of the whole family of God, the redeem 
ed, as being either in heaven or in earth. "Of whom the whole family in 
heaven and earth is named" (Eph. 3:15). According to Rome's teaching 
Paul leaves out a great part of the family, for he makes no recognition of 
a place called purgatory. 

From the above answer to Rome 's unfounded teachings in reference 
to such a place of punishment, let it not be inferred that we are making 
light of the doctrine of future punishment of sin. Very plainly and solemnly 
did our Lord teach the existence of such a place, into w^hich all who die 
in their sins shall be cast. The words of the Judge on the great day of 
assizes will be, "Depart from Me ye. cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared 
for the devil and his angels." From such eternal punishment our Lord 
is offering a complete ransom and deliverance through his own precious 
blood. His solemn voice to us is, "Prepare to meet thy God, and there is 
but one Avay of preparation through acceptance of Him as our Lord and 
Redeemer and the unreserved dedication of our lives to His service. 

John on Patmos was permitted to see through the open door of heaven 
and to hear refrains of the songs- of the redeemed. And what was the sub- 
stance of these songs? "Unto Him Who loved us' and washed us from our 
sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God. ' ' Not 
one syllable about having satisfied for their sins by their own sufferings in 
purgatorial fires. They recognize their redemption as being wholly of the 
mercy and grace of God. None but the blood-washed can ever sing the song 
of the ransomed. "Salvation unto our God and the Lamb." "These are 



132 THE BLOOD-WASHED THRONG 

they who washf^d their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." 
"Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have a right to the 
tree of life." When our first parents w^ere driven out of Eden, a flaming 
sword was placed at the entrance to prevent their return to the tree of life 
by the way w^hieh they came out. In the paradise of God above, the tree' 
grows on either side of the river and in the midst of the street — every where 
accessible. How has it become accessible? Midway between Eden's gate 
and the gates of the new^ paradise there stood another tree and on it hung 
the Son of God as oar representative and security. On Him Who hung up- 
on that tree fell the strokes that were due to us for sin, and now the way 
to the tree of life is set freely open before us. Why not draw^ near to Him 
Who says, ''Come unto Me"? 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What is the Sixth article of the Romish Creed? 

What three dogmas in this Creed stand inseparably related? 

How does Rome hold her subjects in bondage through these teachings? 

For what purpose was the dogma of the Mass invented? 

Is Rome ever able to assure her subjects definitely that their friends 
have been relieved from purgatory? 

What is the most stupendous system of graft the w^orld has known? 

For what is the Mass said to be offered (Art. V. Romish Creed) ? 

How is the doctrine of purgatory further defined? 

What sort of people go to purgatory? 

What two classes of sin does Rome recognize? 

Is there any Scriptural foundation for such a classification? 

What is the w^ages of every sin? 

Does Rome undertake to fix the duration of purgatorial sufferings? 

What are the various opinions on this matter? 

By what Scriptures does Rome attempt to prove her teachings? 

What is the true interpretation of Matt. 5:26? Of Matt. I2:S2- Of 
1 Cor. 3:13? Of 1 Peter 3:19? 

How does this doctrine contradict the gospel teaching concerning the 
completeness of Christ's satisfaction for sin by His sufferings and death? 



ARTICLE .SEVEN OF THE KOMISH CKKKI) 133 



LKSSOX XVIII 



THE IXVOCATIOX OF SAIXTS-MAKMOLATRY, 
DOCTRIXES DEFINED 



Article VII. of the Creed of Pius IV. 

"Likewise, thai: the Saints, reigning together with Christ, are -to l:e 
honored and invocated; and they offer prayers to God for us, and that their 
relics are to be held in veneration." — Article VII. of the Creed of Pius IV. 

Cardinal Gibbons bases Rome's teachings and practices in invocating the 
glorified saints on the following article in the so called "Apostles' Creed'': 
"I believe in the communion of saints." He adds: "The true and obvious 
sense which comes from the Creed is that, between the children of God, 
whether reigning in heaven or sojourning on earth, there exists an intercom- 
munion or spiritual communication by prayer; and consequently, there are 
friends who have entered into their rest w'ho are mindful of us in their 
petitions to God. With regard to the invocation of saints, the Church simply 
declares that it is useful and salutary to ask their prayers." 

The Church of Rome divides religious worship into three kinds: (1) 
Latria, worship due to God alone; (2) Hyperdulia, worship due to the Virgin 
Mary; (?>) Dulia, worship due to the saints. It has been truly said that 
such distinctions are false in theory and useless in practtce. The word Dulia 
not infrequently denotes the service belonging to God. "Ye cannot serve 
(douleuein) God and Mammon" (Matt. 6:24). Who can so nicely balance 
his feelings as to give to God, the Virgin and the saints their due proportion? 
Religious worship is any act, whether outward or inward, of prayer and 
praise, any outward homage exhibited by kneeling, bowing, prostration, or 
standing, or any inward homage of the heai't connected with a sense of 
spiritual devotion, expressive of a sense of sin or a desire for pardon, or of 
thanks for mercies received. Such religious worship belongs to God alone. 
The giving of any religious worship to a creature is idolatry-, pure and simple. 

On the worship due to the relics, pictures or images of the saints, the 
Council of Trent declares: "The holy bodies of holy martyrs and others 
now living Avith Christ are to be venerated by the faithful; through which 
many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they w'ho affirm that 
veneration and honor are not due to saints are wholly to be condemned." 
Again: "The images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God and of the 
other saints are to be had ard retained, particularly in the temple, and that 
due honor and veneration are to bo given to them" (Sess. 25). 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent declares: "To make and honor 
images of our Lord, of His Holy and Virgin Mother, and of all the saints, 
who appear in human form, is not only not forbidden, but has always been 
deemed a holy practice and the surest indication of the mind deeply impressed 
with gratitude toward them. The pastor will inform the faithful that the 
images of the saints are placed in churches, not only to be honored, but 



134 THE EVOLUTION OF MARIOLATEY 

that also admonished by their example, we may imitate their lives and model 
rheir virtues" (page 250). 

The Queen of all the saints is the Virgin Mary. The development of 
Rome 's teaching concerning Mariolatry is a fruitful theme of study. The 
worship of the Virgin Mary, which made rapid progress between the fourth 
and ninth centuries, ^-vas more distinctly recognized and approved du^-ing 
the tenth century. „Toward its close the custom became prevalent of celebrat- 
ing masses and of abstaining from flesh on Saturday in honor of the Virgin 
Mother. About the middle of the eleventh century, Peter Damian, Cardinal 
Bishop of Ostia, in a sermon on the Nativity of the Virgin, thus identifies 
her with the Almighty. Having asserted that God is or exists in all created 
things in four ways, he says: "In a fourth manner He exists in one creature, 
namely, the Virgin Mary by identity; because He is the same as she is." 
In an apostrophe to ^he Virgin, he actually ascribes omnipotence to her. 
"He that is mighty hath done great things, in that all power is given unto 
thee in heaven and in earth." Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, France, near 
the close of the eleventh century, wrote numerous homilies in honor of the 
Virgin, affirming that the word "Mary" signified "Star of the Sea," and 
endeavoring to show how appropriate the name is to her. He said: "If the 
waves of temptation arise, if thou runnest against the rock of tribulation, 
look to the star called Mary; if thou art tossed upon the waves of pride, 
look to the star called Mary." He elsewhere terms, the Virgin "a mediator 
to the Mediator," and adds that there are none more useful to us than 
Mary. 

Bonaventura, Cardinal Bishop of Albano, is counted one of the most 
eminent saints of the Romish Church (he died July 14:th, 1474). He wrote 
various treatises in honor of the Virgin, the best known of which is "The 
Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ' ' Taking every one of the 150 psalms, 
the "Seraphic Doctor" Bonaventura so changes the opening words as to 
address it, not to the Lord Jehovah, but to the Virgin Mary. The following 
are a few examples: 

Psalm 1: "Blessed is the man that loveth thy name, O Virgin Mary; 
thy grace shall strengthen his heart." Psalm 30: "In thee, O Lady, have 
I put my trust; let me never be put to confusion; in thy grace uphold me." 

The teachings of Rome in reference to the Virgin Mary reached a cul- 
mination and crystallization in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, 
declared by Pope Pius IX., December Sth, 1854: "By the authority of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own 
authority, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds 
that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant -of her conception, 
by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of 
Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved free from all stain of 
original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and 
steadfastly believed in by all the faithful. 

"Wherefore, if any shall presume — which may God avert — to think in 
their heart otherwise than has been defined by us, let them know and moreover 
understand, that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have 



FEASTS OF THE VIRGIN l.'i;' 

mado ship-^reok as rogards the faith and hnvp fallon away from thp unity 
of the Church." 

There are more churches dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the city of 
Rome than have been dedicated to our Lord Jesus Himself. There are more 
feasts observed by the Church of Rome in her honor than are ascribed to 
her Eternal Son. In "The Beauties of the Catholic Church." an authorized 
manual used by priests in giving instruction to Catholic young people, the 
following lists of feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary are given: (l)The 
Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8th,- (2) The Feast of the 
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, September 8th; (.3) The Feast of the Holy 
Name of Mary, observed August 7th: (4) The Feast of the presentation 
of the Blessed Virgin Mary, November 21st; (5) The Feast of the Espousal 
of the Blessed Virgin, January 23rd; ((5) The Feast of the Annunciation 
of the Blessed Virgin, March 25th; (7) The Feast of the Visitation of the 
Virgin Mary, July 2nd; (8) The Feast of the Expectation of the Blessed 
Virgin, December 18th; (9) The Feast of the Purification of the Blessed 
Virgin, February 2nd; (10) The Feast of the Dolors of the Blessed Virgin, 
commemorated on Friday of Passion Week; (11) The Feast of the Assump- 
tion of the Blessed Virgin, August 15th. Besides these there are a great 
number of so-called minor feasts observed in her honor: Feast of the Blessed 
Virgin of Mt. Carmel, July 16th; the dedication of St. Mary Adnives, August 
5th; the feast of Mary of Me»cy, September 24th; the Feast or Solemiiity 
of the Rosary, first Sabbath in October, etc., etc. In the book just named 
an elaborate description is given of the ceremonies required at each of these 
feastS; with reasons requiring their observance. The same authority de- 
scribes and defines the custom of dedicating Saturday to the honor of the 
Blessed Virgin. He adds: "The same sentiment which induced the servants 
of Mary to consecrate one day in the week and to honor her three times 
a day, also inspired them with the idea of consecrating to 'her an entire 
month, and they selected for this purpose, the fairest and most charming of 
the year — the month of May. The devotion known as the month of Mary 
originated in- Italy, the middle of the last century. The secular May festivals 
had become the occasion of riot and sinful activity, and to counteract these 
some devoted servant consecrated to her this beautiful month. They adorn 
her statues with beautiful plants and fragrant flowers, and daily gather 
around it to implore, through the powerful intercession of the Queen of 
Heaven, mercy of God on the blind children of the world." 

In this manual instruction is given to Catholic young people concerning 
the later life of the Virgin. "Some think that she went with St. John to 
Ephesus and died there, but this only seems to be grounded on conjecture. 
It seems more probable that she died in Jerusalem. As soon as the days of 
bloody persecution were past the Christians began to celebrate the death 
of Virgin Mary. At first it was commemorated on the ISth of January, 
but from A. D. 582 we find the day celebrated on the 15th of August. The 
epistle in the masses for this day begins with these words: 'In all these 
1 sought rest and I shall abide in the inheritance of the Lord' (Ecclesiasticus 
24:11); and the epistle for that day ends as follows: 'Mary has chosen 



136 HIGH SOUNDINd TITT.ES 

the botter part which shall not be taken away from her' (Lulve 10:42)," It 
will be seen tliat the first of these quotations is from one of the apocryphal 
books. The latter is a fair example of Kome 's perversion of Scripture. Any 
child who is familiar with Luke 10:38-42 knows well that the Mary spoken 
of in these verses is the Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. 
Evidently Eomish compilers of manuals, of instruction do not count on their 
young people comparing their writings with the sacred Scriptures. 

In the ''Litany of the Blessed Virgin," the Virgin is addressed by the 
most lofty and high sounding titles. In this Litany she is called, Holy Mary, 
Holy Mother of God, Virgin of virgins. Mother of Divine Grace, Mirror of 
Justice, Seat of Wisdom, Cause of our Joy, Spiritual A^essel, Vessel of Honor. 
Vessel of Singular Devotion, Mystical Eose, Tower of David, Tower of Ivory, 
House of Gold, Ark of the Covenant, Gate of Heaven, Morning Star, Health 
of the Weak, Eefuge of the Sinners, Comfortress of the Afflicted, Help of 
Christians, Queen of Virgins, Queen of Confessors, Queen of Saints. Such a 
list of titles and honors is no where conferred by Rome upon God the Father, 
Son or Holy Spirit. 

Romish. Arguments for Saint Worship 

They quote Zech. 1:12 where the Angel of Jehovah as represented as 
praying to Jehovah of hosts on behalf of Jerusalem and Judah. But even 
according to their own interpretation this text afford^ no example or authoriza- 
tion for praying to angels. Besides, the Angel of Jehovah in this text is 
doubtless the Angel or Messenger of the Covenant, none other but our Lord 
Jesus Himself. Compare Acts 7:30, where we are told that an angel appeared 
to Moses in a flame of tire in a bush. Comparing Ex. 3:6, we hear this Angel 
say to Moses, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, tha God of 
Isaac, the God of Jacob. ' ' Cyril of Alexandria, recognized by Rome as one 
of the "fathers," commenting on Zech. 1:12, says: ''It was customary for the 
Holy prophets to speak of the Word of God as an Angel, as being one who 
announced things to come and to cleeily set forth the will of God the Father." 

Other texts cited in support of the invocation to Saints, are Luke 16:27, 28, 
the example of the rich man in hell who prayed to Abraham. The conduct 
of a lost soul is not a safe guide for the Christian on earth. There is not one 
instance in the Bible of a living saint praying to a dead saint. Besides, the 
prayer of the rich man in torment was ineffectual. 

Heb. 12:22 is cited, where it is said that believers are "come to an in- 
numerable company of angels." But in this text there is not one word about 
intercession by saints or angels, but points to the future glory of the redeemed. 

Rev. 6:10; "How long, O Lord^ Holy and true, dost thou not judge and 
avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" Whatever the supplication 
of the redeemed in glory concerning the progress of Christ's Kingdom upon 
earth may be, there is not a syllable that points in the direction of saints on 
earth presenting their supplications to the saints in heaven. 

Luke 15:10: "LikeAvise I say unto you. There is joy in the presence 
of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. '' This text is cited in 
support of the teaching that the saints in heaven hear the supplications of the 
saints upon earth. But the very record implies that the knowledge of the 



THE FATHERS ON' rXIVEHSAL (;riLT . i;;7 

sinuer's conversiun is comniunici'ttMl 1»\- the Good Shephord Himself. 

Arguments Against the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary 

Countless testimonies mi^rhi bo cited from the "fathers," ^vhose unanimous 
consent Rome declares she must have in order to interpret the Scriptures, 
showing that this dogma of Pius IX, had no place in their belief. Augustine 
says, speaking of our Lord, "He alone being made man, but remaining God. 
never had any sin, nor did He take on Him a flesh of sin, though from the 
flesh of sin of His mother. For of the flesh He thence took He either when 
taken immediately purified, or purified in the act of taking" (Vol. 10, page 
61.) Again he says, "Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and 
the flesh of our Lord springing from Mary, died to take aAvay sin" (Vol. 10, 
page 1334). 

Ambrose says^ "Of all that are born of woman, the Holy Lord Jesus 
was the only one who experienced not the contagion of earthly corruy)tion" 
(Vol. 1, page 1300.) 

Antoninus, Arch.-bishop of Florence, in the fifteenth century, who was 
afterward canonized says:; "If the Scriptures be truly considered, and the 
sayings of the doctors, ancient and modern, who Avere most devoted to the 
glorious Virgin, it was plain from their words that she was conceived in sin" 
(Part 1, chapter 2.) 

Cardinal Cajetan, a recognized Roman authority, says: "Besides these 
holy fathers a great majority of ancient doctors agree in saying that the 
Blessed- A'^irgin was conceived in original sin. ' ' 

Even among Popes we find decrees against the dogma of Pius IX. Gregory 
the Great says: "He (Christ) alone was truly born holy" (Vol. 1, page 598). 

Most emphatically do the Scriptures deny the dogma of the immaculate 
Conception. Paul says, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of 
God." (Rom. 3;23.) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ' ' 
(Rom. 5;12.) But the Scriptures have included all under sin (Gal. 3:23.) 
Mary herself laid no claim to immaculate holiness. In her song she says, "My 
spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 2;47,') thus taking the position 
of a humble sinner dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. 

Rome delights to contrast Eve and Mary — the former bringing sin into 
the world, the latter delivering from it. The Scriptures never use this com- 
parison, but they do contrast Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:fS: 1 Cor. 1-5:22, etc.). 

Mariolatry is of pagan, not of Scriptural origin. The veneration of A^aiy 
corresponds to the heathen worship of Isis in Egypt, Juno and Ceres in Greece, 
Romana or Fortuna in Rome. 

The mother of our Lord is mentioned in the New Testament in twentv- 
three passages. St. Matthew gives her name in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 
1:16); tells of the removal of St. Joseph's doubts of her purity; of the 'birth 
of Jesus; of her presence when the Wise ]Men came to adoie her Son (1:11); 
of the warning to Joseph to take the young Child and His mother to Egy])t 
(^^2:13); of the command to Josepli to retuiii with them from Egypt (2:20. 
21); of the answer of Jesus when toltl that His mother and brethren desired 
to speak with Him, declaring that all who do God's will rank as His mother 
and brethren (12:46-50); of Mary named as Christ's mother by the unbeliev- 



138 , MAEY IN THE SCKIPTUKES 

iiig Jews (13:50). St. Mark gives the reply recorded in St. Mattliew to the 
news that His mother inquired for Him (3:31, 35), and also states that Mary- 
was named by the Jews as the mother of Jesus (6:3). In St. Luke we find 
the Annunciation, the Visitation, and the Song of the Virgin (1:26, 57); 
the arrival of Mary and Joseph at Bethlehem, and the Nativity (2:5-7); the 
visit of the Shepherds to her and the Child and Joseph (2:16); the statement 
that she kept and pondered all these things in her heart (2:19); her visit 
to Jerusalem, and the w^ords of Simeon (2:33, 35); her going up to Jerusalem 
at the Passover, when she failed to understand how her Son, when He left 
her for a time, had ''been about His Father's business" (2:41,50); the 
statement that the Child Jesus was subject to her and Joseph (2:51); and 
the remarkable reply of our Lord to the woman who extolled the blessedness 
of His mother: "Yea, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and 
keep it" (11:27, 28). St. John, who of all the Evangelists might have been 
expected to speak most of the mother of our Lord, mentioned her on only 
three occasions: in the narrative of the miracle of Cana, when our Lord 
said unto His mother in reply to her statement, ''They have no wine": 
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (2:1-5); in the account of His going- 
down to Capernaum, w^here it is related that He w^as accompanied by His 
mother, His brethren, and His disciples (2:12); and in the account of the 
Crucifixion, w^here it is said, "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and 
the disciple standing by, whom He loved. He saith unto His mother, Woman, 
behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! " (19:26, 27, 
E. v.). In the Acts of the Apostles the only reference is in the narrative 
of what happened after the Ascension, and there no special place of honor 
is suggested: "These all with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer 
with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren'' 
(1:14, E. v.). The only other passage in the New Testament w^hich has 
an}^ reference to Marj^ is in the Epistle to the Galatians, "God sent forth 
His Son made of a woman under the law" (4:4). 

Prayer to Mary the Mother of our Lord. Eoman Catholic writers accuse 
the Protestants of misrepresentations in saying that prayers are authorized 
to be offered to Mary which imply more than petitions for intercession. 
Protestants may be pardoned for doing so when they find prayers authorized 
by high ecclesiastical authorities which seem to imply belief in a power on 
her part ordinarily thought to belong only to God. In the great Cathedral 
of Antwerp the visitors find this prayer provided for the use of all who go 
there: 

' ' O Mary, remember the solemn moment when Jesus, your Divine Son, 
dying on the cross, committed us to your motherly care. You are our mother, 
and we desire to belong always to you. Faithful to the commendation of 
Jesus who died for us, we place in your hands our persons, our families, 
our children, and all our interests, spiritual and temporal. Make lis sensible 
of the efforts of your powerful intercession with Jesus Christ. Glorify your 
name in this city of Antwerp, which was consecrated to you, and above all 
in this celebrated Cathedral, which was dedicated to you by the piety of our 
ancestors. Preserve for us inviolate the purity of our faith. Keep the hearts 
of our children from the spirit of evil; give success to their education, make 



A PKAYER TO THE VIRGIN 1:51) 

them true Christians. (live health to our sick; comfort our poor afflicted 
ones: convert our unhappy evildoers; foret not our dear dejiarteti rtnes. Make 
us to belong to you and to your I)i\iiu' Son. in life, and in death, and for 
all eternity, Amen.'' 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What is the declaration of Article YII of the Romish Creed? 

What does Cardinal Gibbons define as the ''Communion of Saints"? 

What classification in worship does Rome attempt to make? 

Are these distinctions either Scriptural or practicable? 

Who is recogjnized as the Queen of all the saints? 

WTien did the Avorship of the Virgin Mary begin to be taught and 
{)ra''ticed? 

What are some of the sayings of Damian, Bernard, Bonaventura and 
others? 

What perversions of the inspired Psalter does Bonaventura jnake? 

When was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated? 

What does it declare? 

How^ does the number of Churches dedicated to the Virgin in Rome 
compare with those dedicated to Christ? 

How does the number of feasts ascribed to her compare with those 
dedicated to Christ? 

What day of the week is especially devoted to her worship? W^hat month? 

What perversion of Luke 10:42 is made by a Roman writer? 

What are some of the titles ascribed to Mary in the Roman Litany? 

What are some texts olfered by Rome in support of the Invocation of 
Saints? 

Did the "fathers" give "unanimous consent'' to the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception? 

Do the Scriptures ever compare Eve and Mary? 
.How often is Mary named in the New Testament? 

Give a list of these r^-ferences. 

Are divine honors ascribed to her in any of these? 

Does this dogma conform to Scriptures which teach universal guilt of 
mankind? 

After what pagan idolatries is Mariolatry fashioned? 



AO A SAINT DEFINED 

1.E8S0N XIX 
ARGUMENTS AGAINST SATNT WORSHIP 



The following definiticn of a saint is taken from a series, of Questions 
and AnsAvers compiled by the Rev. Bertrand L. Conway, one of the "Paulisi 
Fathers" for the purpose of winning Protestants to the Eoman faith: 

"A saint is one Avhose extraordinary holiness of life and heroic virtues 
have attracted the notice of the Universal Church, and who after the most 
exact scrutiny into every detail of his life, writings, etc., has been placed on 
the list 'of God's chosen followers. Except in the case of the martyrs, their 
holiness must be proved conclusively by evident miracles before they are canon- 
ized'' (Pp. 538, 539.) 

The s^me author gives the following reason for the saying of fifteen 
Holy Mary's for every ten Our Fathers: 

"It is natural that in a demotion specially hers, the major portion of 
the prayers should be addressed directly to the Blessed Virgin. Catholics know- 
full well that in honoring the Mother of God they necessarily honor God, whose 
masterpiece she is" (Page 538.) 

Arguments Against Saint Worship 
First, we do not know who are saints. From the works of Cai'dinal 
Bellarmine it appears that a drunkard was worshiped as a saint in the days 
of Pope Alexander III., Avho at length corrected the mistake. The same cardinal 
informs us that the departed spirit of a man who was adored as a saint ap- 
peared to St. Martin and acknowledged that he was a lost spirit (De Cult. 
Sanct. 1: i c 7.) It is true that the Church of Rome has, in recent times, taken 
measures to safe-guard the people against such impositions by her system of 
canorrization. The alleged miracles of the deceased are examined and a person 
called "The Devil's Advocate" is employed to urge objections. The decree of 
the Pope is then issued, accompanied by many ceremonials, and the name of 
the dead person is enrolled among the saints. The author of "The Beauties of 
the Catholic Church/ " the manual of instruction for Catholic young people 
already quoted, says: "At first the canonization of saints took place in the 
councils by advice and counsel of the Cardinals, archbishops and bishops, outside 

of the formal council, and such is the custom today After the lapse 

of fifty years of the death of a servant of God, if all the evidence concerning 
the holiness of his life is brought forward, and at least two miracles wrought 
through him are incontestably true, his beatification then follows. The title 
of 'Blessed' is conferred upon him and a limited veneration is permitted. If 
the veneration of the saint continues and new miracles take place, the last 
stage of the proceding — namely, the canonizationi— is introduced. This is done 
in a papal consistory, Avhere the title of 'saint' is given to him who was 
previously declared 'blessed.' His relics may now be exposed for public 
veneration, and permission is granted to celebrate feasts and erect churches 
in his honor.'' (Page 213.) It need scarcely be added that for all this 
rigmarole, there is not a syllable of divine authorization in the Holy Scriptures. 



SAJNTS PAXNOT HE All TKAYEK 141 

Second, the saints cannot hear prayer. Wlu'ii Huldjth the iMoplicicss wjr^ 
sciidino- Ctchi 's nu'ssa^e to Josiah. aftrr lie iiKiuircd conccniiii;^^ tin' jiuljLjnuMit.> 
threatened upon the disobedient ]»eople. she assured him: "I also have heard 
thee, stiith ,leho\ah. Behold, J will j^ather thee to riiy fathers, and thou 
shalt be gathered to thy grave in grief, neither shall thine eyes see all the 
evil which I Avill biing upon this place'' (2 Kings, 22:20.) Thus he was 
assured that he should not be cognizant of the affairs that would take place 
in Jerusalem after his death. The prophet Isaiah offered this prayer on behalf 
of Israel and Judah: ''Doubtless Thou art our Father, though Abraham be 
ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not; Thou, O Lord, art our Father, 
our Redeemer, Thy name is from everlasting" (Isa. 63:16.) If any of God's 
redeemed and glorified saints art^ conscious of the experiences of His people 
upon earth, surely Abraham and Jacob would be familiar with the conditions 
among their descendants in the promised inheritance upon earth. This text 
counterbalances the argument by which Eome attempts to prove the invocation 
of saints from the mention of Dives in torment calling to Abraham for help. 
Isaiah said that Abraham and Jacob were ignorant of him and his contem- 
poraries. Eomanists do not undertake to determine how the saints hear the 
prayers offered to them. Some say they acquire their knowledge through 
the angels, but avIio knows whether the angels hear our prayers or not? Others 
say that they have wonderful power of locomotion; but the invention of this 
argument only proA es that they are not omnipresent; otherwise why should 
+hey go from place to placed And where is the proof that they possess such 
powers of locomotion? And who knoAvs whether they are near when you pray 
or not? Others say that the knowledge of our prayers is revealed to them 
by God. According to this theory. He communicates our prayers to the saints 
in order that the saints may intercede for us with God in heaven. If this be 
the order, where is our boldness of access to God in praper? 

Third, no example of prayers addressed to saints is found in the Scrip- 
tures, There is not a syllable of authority in the whole Bible for Rome's 
festivals of the saints or prayers to them. Mary is called in Romish litanies 
"Queen of the Universe," "Our Life, our Sweetness, our Hope," etc., but 
the Bible noAvhcre gives her such titles. She is recognized as a devout, humble. 
God-fearing woman, but nowhere^ are divine honors ascribed to her. The wise 
men from the East did homage to the Child, not to the mother. "They saw 
the young Child Avith Mary His Mother, and fell down and worshiped Him" 
(Matt. 2:11.) The last glimpse we' have of Mary in the Bible is as one of 
the suppliants in the upper room in Jerusalem, praying for the gift of the 
Holy Spirit (Aft'? J. -14,) and there she is designated simply as "Mary, the 
Mother of Jesus." She is referred to in the Epistles only once, and then only 
under the simple designation, "a woman.'' "Made of a Avoman, made under 
the law'' (Gal. -1:4). Our Lord shoAved great tenderness to His mother, 
thoughtfully providing for her a home Avith the most gentle of His disciples 
Avhen He hung upon the cross. But it Avould seem that He foresaw the 
idolatrous homage that Avould be given to her in ages following and directly 
guarded against it, ascribing to His mother no powers or honors that do not 
belong to other godly Avomen. When told that His mother and brethren Avere 
desirous to see Him, He replied,, "Who soever shall do the Avill of My Father 



142 THE SCRIPTURES FORBlD SAINT WORSHIP 

Who is in heaven, the same is My brother, My sister, and mother" (Matt. 12: 
50.) W^hen one of His hearers interrupted His discourse with the words, 
"Blessed is the womb that bare Thee and the breasts that gave Thee suck," 
Jesus answered, "Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God 
and keep it" (Luke 11: 28.) 

Fourth, The Scriptures forbid saint-worship. Contrast with Rome's super 
stitious honors bestowed upon the bronze statue of Peter in Rome, — which is 
nothing else than the old heathen statue of Jupiter — that apostle 's prompt 
refusal to accept homage from Cornelius. "Peter took him up, saying, Stard 
up; I myself also am a man' (Acts 10:26). tWhen the Lystrans were about 
to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, they rushed forth, saying, ' ' Sirs, 
why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach 
to you that ye should tLrn from these vanities unto the living God" (Acts 14: 
15). Paul also wrote to the Colossians, "Let no man beguile you of your 
reward into a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels" (Col. 2:18). John 
also records that when he was about to worship the angel which showed him 
heavenly things, that messenger of God said, " See thou do it not; I am thy 
fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the 
sayings of this book; worship God" (Rev. 22; 9.) As an illustration of 
Rome's perversion of such plain Scripture, Dr. Blakeney cites the Controversial 
Catechism, by Father Keenan: "Should we honor the saints and angeL^? 
Then, replying the affirmative, he adds, ' ' St. John fell down to adore bet'or(» 
the feet of the angel," referring to Rev. 22:8, but he takes good care not to 
refer to the following verse in w^hich such adoration is forbidden and con- 
demned. 

Fifth, Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man. Th^s is 
the great reason why the adoration and invocation of angels and saints is for- 
bidden. We have seen that such intercessions would be useless, because they 
could not be heard. They are needless also because we have a great Intercessor, 
who hears every cry of our hearts, and Him the Father heareth always. 
Jesus said to His disciples, ' ' No man cometh unto the Father, but my Me. ' ' 
(John 14:6.) "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, 
the Man Christ Jesus" ((1 Tim. 2:6.) "He is able also to save them to the 
uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make inter- 
cession for them" (Heb. 7:25.) The same epistle clearly shows that Jesns 
Christ alone mediates in heaven. Speaking of the fact that the Aaronic high 
priest went into the holiest of all alone, once a year, with the blood of the 
atonement, and with burning incense, the writer of this statement shows that 
Jesus Christ, Who is the High Priest of our profession, thus makes intercession 
for us in heaven (Heb. 9:24.) The beloved apostle teaches the same great 
truth when he declares, ' ' If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father, 
Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1.) It was death for any one to interfere 
with the office of the high priest in the tabernacle or temple. Thus emphatic- 
ally was it taught that none dare interfere with the Mediatorial work of the 
blessed Jesus who is the high priest in heaven, the true holy of holies, and 
Who is the ' ' One Mediator between God and men. ' ' 

It is because Rome 's dogmas concerning the veneration and invocation 
of saints and angels assigns to others a function that belongs only to our Lord 



OUR ALL-SUFFICIENT INTERCESSOR 143 

Jesus Christ, that we so earnestly protest aj2:ainst it. Jesus Christ is uot only 
the All-sufficient Mediator, He is the only mediator between Otod and man. 

He says, ''No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." He is the Advocate 
through whom alone the sinner may hope to find pardon and justification in the 
sight of God. As the high priest alone went into the holy of holies, so 
Jesus our High Priest alone atones and intercedes for us at God's right hand. 

Through Him we are exhorted to come with all boldness to the throne 
of grace. "Having therefore brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest 
by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He hath consecrated 
for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh, and having a High Priest over 
the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in the full assurance of 
faith" (Hebrews 10:19-22.) 

' ' Seeing that we have a Great High Priest Who is passed into the heavens, 

Jesus the Son of God, let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of 

grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" 
(Heb. 4:14-16.) 

One of the visions which John the beloved disciple had on Patmos was of a 
throne set in heaven, and One who sat thereon, w^hose appearance was like 
a jasper and a sardius — the bright light representing the immaculate brightness 
of Jehovah's holiness, the sardius representing the deep red of His perfect 
humanity. John also says: "And there was a rainbow round about the 
throne" (Rev. 4:1-3.) The rainbow is the emblem of the covenant of peace 
and salvation made betw^een God the Father and our blessed Redeemer. But 
are we within the provisions of that inviolable covenant? And how may we 
come within that charmed circle? Simply by drawing near to the throne 
of grace, to which we are exhorted to come wdth boldness. He who sits upon 
that throne says, "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and 
I will give you rest." Why^ should we not hear His voice? Why try to 
invent any other way? Why seek for any other intercessor? There is no 
need for aaiy other. Jesus is able to save unto the uttermost them that come 
unto God by Him, seeing that He ever liveth to make intercession for them. 

Oh, the folly of those w^ho have set before them this open way, and w'ho 
yet will not come to God through this way I Once the governor of Pennsyl- 
vania visited a jail in which was confined a murderer who was even then 
under the death watch, waiting the execution of the sentence to die upon 
the gallows. After the governor had left the prison, the condemned man 
on hearing that he had been so near, piteously exclaimed, "Why did you not 
tell me that the governor was here! I would have flung myself at his feet 
and implored him to have granted me a pardon and to have saved me from 
the gallows. I w^ould have besought him with tears. I would have clung to 
him and would not have let him go until he had granted me the desire of my 
heart. ' ' 

Reader, you are under a greater condemnation, if you have not sought and 
obtained the pardoning mercy of God through the blood and intercessions of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. The way is fully open. He is calling to you now-, 
saying, "Him that cometh unto Me^ I will in no wise cast out." Will you 
come? Neglect not this opportunity uiifil it is foreyev past apd you seek for 
it in vain with bitter tears, 



144 C0N8EQUENCES OF NEGLPJCT 

We are ready to eoiidemii those who through, neglect permit their bodily 
health to be undermined or their business to be ruined. A man had an en- 
gagement to meet a purchaser at twelve o'clock sharp to close an important 
deal. The purchaser was on the spot at the appoijited time ready to fill his 
agreement, although already rueing his bargain. He waited until live minutes 
past the hour and then departed, leaA'ing behind him a note, *'I was here 
at the appointed time. You were not. The deal is off.'' But what is the 
loss of bodily health or the loss of a business opportunity to the eternal 
loss of the immortal soul? ''Today, if ye will hear His voice, harden not 
vour heart. ' ' 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

How does Father Conway define a saint? 

How does he account for the numerous petitions addressed to the A^irgin 
M.ary? 

Can they who invoke the saints know certainly that they are saints? 

How does Eome try to make sure at this point? 

Do the saints in heaven hear our prayers? 

Would Josiah be conscious of the sins and miseries of his sons? 

Were Abraham and Jacob conscious of the needs "of Isaiah and his 
cotemporaries? 

Do the Scriptures give a single example of a prayer addressed by on.e on 
earth to a saint in heaven? 

Did the messenger from heaven accept the homage of John on Patmos? 

Did Jesus ever encourage divine honors to be given to His mother? 

Who only entered into the holy of holies in the temple? 

Who only intercedes for us in heaven? 

What did John see round about the throne? 

How may we come within the circle of the rainbow? 

Who is now saying, ''Come unto Me?" 

Why should no one neglect this present opportunity? 



THE BKAZEX SEIU'ENT A SNAKE 145 

LESSON XX 

THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 

. ''I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, 
ever virgin, and also of other saints may be had and retained and that due 
honor and veneration are to be given tliem. " ' — Article VIII. of the Creed 

of Pope IMus IX. 

The (\)uncil of Trent more fully declares the teachings and practices 
of the Catholic Church regarding the use of images in the following decree: 

"The images of Christ, and of His Virgin Mother, and of other Saints 
are to be had and a-jetained, especially in churches; and a due honor and 
veneration is to be given to them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed 
to be in them for which they are to be honored, or that any prayer is to 
be made to them, or that any confidence is to be placed in them, as was 
formerly done by the heathens, ^vho placed their hopes in idols; but because 
the honor which is given them is referred to the originals which they rep- 
resent, so that by the images which we kiss, and before Avhich we uncover, 
our heads or kneelj w^e adore Christ and venerate His saints, whose likeness 
they represent." (Sess. 25). 

In attempting to support her teaching and practice in . this matter the 
Church of Rome cites the making of the brazen serpent and the cherubim 
which were above the Ark of the Covenant. In the catechism knowif as "The 
Grounds of Catholic Doctrine," there are found the following question and, 
answer: 

"Q. — How do you prove that it is lawful to make or keep images of, 
Christ and His saints? 

"A.— Because God Himself commanded Moses (Exod. 25;18, 19, 20, 21) 
to make two cherubim of beaten gold, and place them at the two ends of the 
mercy seat, over the ark of the covenant, in the very sanctuary. 'Thenpe, ', 
says he (verse 22) 'avUI I give orders, and will speak to thee oyer the pro- 
pitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubim w'hich shall be upon the 
ark of the testimony all things which I will command the children of Is- 
rael -.by thee.' God also commanded (Kum. 21:8, 9) a serpent of brass to 
be made, for the healing of those who Avere bitten by the fiery serpents; 
Avhich serpent was an emblem of Christ (John ;5:l-]^, 15)." (Page 4S). 

In reference to the Scriptures thus cited o])serve: 

1. The case of the brazen serpent furnishes a direct argument against 
image worsiiip. Rome is careful not to cite llezekiah 's destruction of that, 
serpent when it became a snare to the people and led them into idolatry. 
"He removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the As- 
herah; and he brake m pieces the Ijrazen serpent that JMoses had made; 
for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; and he 
called it Neh-iishtan "- — piece of brass (2 Kings 1S:4). So we see that this 
very example by which Rome seeks to find Scriptural approval for in.iagc 
worship turns out to be a direct condemnation of such a practice. 

2. The cherubim were made by the express command of God. If the. 



146 IMAGE WORSHIP FORBIDDEN 

Church of Rome can produce a command from heaven directing His people 
to make and to use images in their worship, we are ready to follow the re- 
vealed will of God, But such authority cannot be furnished. Remember 
also that the cherubim were not adored. They were not even seen by the 
people at all. They were kept in the holy place into which the high priest 
entered, and he but once a year. Romanists cannot prove that the Jews 
adored the cherubim. Even Vasques, a Jesuit writer and a great author- 
ity in the Church of Rome, teaches that image worship was altogether 
forbidden under the Old Testament dispensation: and he contends that the 
case of the cherubim does not prove the contrary. He says: ** Every image 
was forbidden as dedicated to adoration; therefore neither the cherubim nor 
any other image had any worship in the temple '' (Vol. T, page 796). Very 
inconsistently this man teaches that the second commandment was ceremo- 
nial and was therefore abolished at the coming of Christ. According to his 
view image worship was unlawful under the Mosaic, but lawful under the 
Christian, dispensation. Bellarmine, and many others disagreed with him. 
They taught that image worship was lawful at all times, and maintained 
that the second commandment was not merely ceremonial, but moral — an 
example of the boasted unity which exists in the Church of Rome! 

1. Testimony of the Fathers is against image worship. This Article, 
like every Romish dogma which we have considered, lacks that unanimous 
consent of the fathers which this creed declares to be necessary for the 
support of any doctrine. Cassander says, ' ' How much the ancient fathers 
in the primitive Church did abhor all manner of ancient images, even Origen 
declares" (page 975). 

The Council of Frankfort declared: "It is not to be found that any 
of the patriarchs, or prophets, or fathers did adore images, but the Scrip- 
tures cry out to worship only God and to adore and glorify Him alone; and 
the fathers of the Primitive Church did forbid the adoration of images, as 
it appears by Epiphanius and Augustine, who reckoned the worshipers of 
images amongst the Simonians and the Carpocratin heretics" (Page 41.) 

2. Image worship is directly forbidden in the Scriptures. Nothing can 
be more express on any subject than the second commandment is in forbid- 
ding all such worship, ' ' Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, 
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth 
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow thy- 
self to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, 
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and 
fourth generations of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thou- 
sands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments" (Ex, 20:4-6). 

A rendering in the Douai Version of v. 5 furnishes even a more emphatic 
condemnation of image worship than does our common version: "Thou shalt 
not bow down thyself to them nor adore them." Yet when images are pre- 
sented for religious veneration in Roman Catholic churches the priest says, in 
pursuing the ritual, "Come, let us adore." 

Evidently, the Church of Rome realizes that image worship is an ex- 
press violation of the second commandment, and therefore she withdraws it 
^g much as possible from view, She has not dared to remove it from the 



THE MrTII,ATED DEOALOOrE 147 

Bible, but in her various catechisms and other manuals of instruction, she 
either omits it in the list of commandments, or attaches it to the first, as 
though it can claim only an inferior position, 

Butler's Catechism, largely used in the British Isles, gives the com- 
mandments as follows: 

1. "I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. 

2. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 

3. "Kemember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 

4. Honor thy father and thy mother, ' ' etc. ' ' 

There lies before me a book called, "The Catholic Faith — A Compendium 
authorized by H. H. Pope Pius X." On page 43 of this manual we read: 
"The commandments of the law of God are ten, I am the Lord thy God: 

"1. Thou shalt not have any other God but Me. 

"2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 

"3. Kemember to keep the feasts holy. 

"4. Honour thy father and thy mother. 

"5. Thou shalt not kill. 

"*6. Thou shalt not commit fornication. 

* * 7. Thou shalt not steal. 

' ' 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 

"9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, 
"10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. 

Thus Rome virtually obliterates one of the commandments which God 
uttered from Sinai, and which with His own finger He wrote upon tables of 
stone for the perpetual guidance of mankind through all succeeding ages. 
Such perversions of Scriptures are in utter violation of the divine warning in 
Deut. 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither 
shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah 
your God which I command you." 

Besides the second commandment there are many other passages pro- 
hibiting the use of images in the worship of God. ' ' Take ye therefore good 
heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that Je- 
hovah spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire; lest ye corrupt 
yourselves and make you a graven ima'ge of any figure, the likeness of male 
or female" (Deut. 4:15, 16,) "Cursed be the man that maketh a graven 
or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, a work of the hands of 
the craftsman" (Deut. 27:15). 

Not only are there many expressions and commands against the mak- 
ing and worshiping of images, but the history of the people of Israel furn- 
ishes severe condemnation of such a practice. 

It was for the making of an image as an aid to the worship of Jeho- 
ah at Mt. Sinai that A^aron and the people were so severely condemned by 
God and Moses, 

Of Jeroboam it is recorded in almost every reference to his name that 
he "made Israel to sin," through his making the golden calves and setting 
them up in Bethel and Dan. All kings of Israel who succeeded him followed 
in his evil footsteps, notwithstanding God's many and emphatic protesta- 
tions against these violations of His Holy law. Finally, because of Israel 's 



148 IMAGE WORSHIP EEAL IDOLATRY 

persisteiice in disregaiding the divine commandments, warnings and judgments, 
the ten tiil)es were carried away into a perjietual captivity and were thus 
blotted out as a distinct body of jK'0])le. Thus God showed His displeas- 
ure against the worship of images in a most emphatic way. That which 
Jeroboam is so often represented as doing to the kings and people of Is- 
rael, the leaders in the Church of Rome are continually doing to mankind. 
They are causing multitudes to sin by leading them to give to the images 
of Christ, Mary and other saints, the worship and homage that is due unto 
God alone. All the reasons annexed to the second comnaandment have their 
fullest force against the worship of such images at the present time. Ro- 
manists plead that their practice of image worship is not idolatrous, be- 
cause, unlike the heathen, their thoughts do not rest in the image itself, 
but Took by means of it to the unseen personal spirit which it represents. 
But heathen writers who defended the worship of images against the early 
Christian teachers took up the very same position as the Romanists now 
occupy. They contended that the image itself was nothing to them; it was 
only a visible means of reaching the -unseen being to whom the homage was 
transferred. Yet the early fathers of the Church, following the example and 
authority of the prophets of Jehovah, denounced the practice of these pagans 
as idolatrous. God Himself, in the second commandment, declares that He 
is a jealous God, and cannot tolerate the giving of homage to images, know- 
ing that the worship which is due to Him alone is soon transferred to the 
image itself. 

Like other unwarranted and forbiddeu practices, the use of images in 
Roman Churches has been a gradual process. Toward the close of the fourth 
century pictures were introduced in the Churches. By the end of the sixth 
century many statues also were found there. A bitter and pronounced, con- 
troversy on the worship of images was supposed by the Church of Rome to 
have been settled at the second General Council of Nice (7S7) which or- 
dained that images were to be erected and honor paid to them, but not the 
kind that was to be ofCered to God. The Church of the first four centuries 
in spite of erratic tendencies in some quarters set its face against the in- 
vocation of saints and the worship of relics and images and gives not 
the slightest countenance to the worship of the mother of Jesus. From Jus- 
tin. Martyr to Origen and Epiphanius, the early writers testify that such 
practices were abhorrent to them. Even when these practices and doctrines 
had taken root in the Church, they were not always universally accepted. 
The Church of Rome, for example, regards the Second Council of Nice held 
in 787, called at the instance of Empress Irene as deciding finally about the 
direction of the worship of images. But it is a matter of history that that 
Council was not regarded as Ecumencial by the Eastern Church and that it 
was only within the sphere of Rome's influence that its decisions were ac- 
cepted. This is proved bj' the fact that just as there had been a previous 
Council held in Constantinople in 754 which condemned the use and wor- 
ship of images, so in 794, or seventeen j'-ears after the Council of Nice, there 
was a most influential synod held at Frankfort, held under Charlemagne, 
which in the name of three hundred bishops of the Western Church formally re- 
jected the Council of Nice and all its decrees. 



IT AVE MF. AS YOI'K GOD 141i 

Whilo we cMnti^stly protest n<;ainst tlu> use of iiiiM^^cs in llic wmsliip 
(tf God, let lis not overlook tlic |tositi\(' elcnuMit in tlic (irsf iind second com 
mandments. We find it in the wortis, "The Lord thy God in the second, 
and in these, "Have no other gods," implying, ''Have Me as your own 
living and true God.'' These commandments forliid atheism as well as idol- 
atry and image worship — not only that which openly and blasphemously says, 
"There is no God," but that practical atheism which consists in living witli- 
out Christ, without God, and \vithout hope. Let us take Him as the Lord 
our God, and we shall have no inclination to worship Him by inventions 
to please our own fancy. 

QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What does Article YIII of the Roman Creed declare in reference to the 
worship of images? 

What is the declaration of the Council of Trent on this subject? 

By what Scriptures do Romanists attempt to justify this teaching and 
practice? 

How does the example of the brazen serpent condemn image worship? 

By w'hose express command were the cherubim made? 

Were they ever adored by the Jews? 

Did the worship of images have the "unanimous consent'' of the fathers? 

What are some of their testimonies against this practice? 

How is this practice condemned by the second commandment? 

How does Rome seek to evade the force of this command? 

Of what is she guilty in thus setting aside one of God's commandments? 

Cite other Scriptures by which image worship is condemned? 

How is the divine displeasure to Avar d it shown by the history of the 
ten tribes of Israel? 

/What difference does Rome claim to -be between pagan idolatrj'^ and 
her image worship? 

How did pagans defend their worship of idols in early centuries? 

How does God show His displeasure of image worship in the reasons 
annexed to the second commandment? 

What is the central positive requirement in the tivst and second command 
ments? 



150 INDULGENrES DEFINED 

LESSON XXI 
INDULGENCES 



''I also affirm, that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the 
Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people." — 
Ninth Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV, 

Cardinal Gibbons says: "An [ndulgence is simply a remission in Avhole 
or in part, through the superabundant mercies of Jesus Christ and His saints, 
of the temporal punishment due to God on account of sin after the guilt 
and eternal punishment have been remitted. It should be born in mind, 
that even after our guilt is removed, there often remains some temporal pun- 
ishment to be undergone, either in this life or the next, as an expiation to 
divine sanctity and justice. The Holy Scriptures furnish us with many ex- 
amples of this truth. Miriam, the sister of Moses, was pardoned the sin which 
she had committed by murmuring against her brother, nevertheless God in- 
flicted on her the penalty of leprosy and of seven days ' separation from the 
people," etc. ("Faith of our Fathers," page 3(i4). 

x\rthur Cushman in his recent volume on Martin Luther, speaks thus of 
the rise and progress of the system of Indulgences practiced by the Eoman 
Church. ' * That traffic was based ultimately upon the Catholic penitential 
system. According to aiicient and modern Catholic belief, forgiveness for 
sins committed after baptism can be secured only through the sacrament 
of penance. This requires repentance, confession to a priest, and the per- 
formance of acts in^ olving some labor or sacrifice on the part of the peni- 
tent, such as fasting, almsgiving, or going upon a pilgrimage. The abso- 
lution pronounced by the priest in the confessional insures release from 
guilt and eternal punishment, but satisfaction must still be rendered in the 
form of works of penance. If not enough of these are done before death, 
they must be continued in purgatory until the debt is fully discharged. Only 
then is the penitent believer prepared to enter heaven. In the early middle 
ages, the custom grew up of permitting the substitution of some other form 
of penance for that regularly prescribed by the church. This permission 
constituted what later came to be called an Indulgence. Large use was 
made of it in connection with the Crusades, when in order to encourage 
enlistment in the crusading armies pope' after pope assured the soldiers of 
the cross that their services would be accepted in full discharge of the pen- 
ance otherwise required of them.. .This was later extended to those who equip- 
ped and sent substitutes in their place, or in other ways contributed to the 
support of the crusading forces. 

"After the Crusades had ceased, granting indulgences in return for the 
payment of money was continued, and the funds raised were employed to 
promote all sorts of sacred ends.. In the thirteenth century a doctrinal basis 
for the practice was found by one of the great schoolmen. The Church, he 
taught;, was in possession of a treasury of merits, composed of the good deeds 
of Christ and His saints, upon which the people could draw for the advantage 
of penitents meeting any condition he might fix. Later the benefit of indul- 



TETZEL AND THE REFORMATION 151 

geiic(^s was extended to snuls in puigatoiy, and the privilege of securing 
their release from its pains was granted to their surviving friends and 
relatives upon the payment of a certain sum. 

''Theoretically, indulgences aflected only the temporal satisfs^ction re- 
quired of the penitent either here or in purgatory, but this was not always 
kept clearly in mind, and often they were supposed to release the purchaser 
from all the consequences of his misdeeds, a popular misconception sometimes 
connived at by the authorities. 

''The shameful extremes to which the trafiic in indulgences was carried 
on in the sixteenth century was the occasion of the great Reformation of 
that period. In order to raise funds for the rebuilding of St. Peter's Church 
at Rome, Pope Leo X. followed the example of his predecessor, Julius II., 
proclaimed a so-called 'plenary indulgence,' i)hrased in very sweeping terms 
and offering to believing purchasers all sorts of benefits, including remission 
of sins, freedom from the necessity of penance, and the release of their 
deceased friends from purgatory. The young Archbishop and Elector of 
Mayence, Albert of Brandenburg, Hohenzollern prince, being in need of 
a large amount of money to pay Rome for the privilege of. assuming the 
archbishopric, when he already held two other sees, made an arrangement 
with the pope whereby he was to superintend the traffic in a part of Ger 
many, receiving half the proceeds in reward for his services. He engaged 
for his chief agent a Dominican prior, John Tetzel by name, a man of learn- 
iii!^ and reputation, and a preacher of great popular power, who had already 
abundantly proved his ability to raise money for sacred ends. The following 
passage from one of his sermons shows how he app>ealed ,to the emotions 
of his hearers: 

" 'Do you not hear your dead parents crying out, "Have mercy upon 
us I We are in sore pain and you can set us free for a mere pittance. We 
have borne you, we have trained and educated you, we have left you all 
our property, and you are so hard-hearted and cruel, that you leave us to 
roast in the flames w^hen you could so easily release us. " ' . 

For the use of his agents Tetzel prepared a "Summary Instruction," 
in Avhich the exact nature of the Indulgence was set forth. Four principal 
graces were granted by the papal bull. The first was a full remission of 
all sins. Those who desired this, however, had to visit seven churches in 
Rome and say devoutly in each of these churches seven Pater Nosters and 
seven Ave Marias. Money w^as to be contributed by all according to their 
position and means. Royal persons, archbishops and bishops must pay twenty- 
five golden florins; abbots, counts and barons ten florins; prelates and lesser 
nobles who had an income of 500 florins must pay six florins; citizens and 
merchants with 200 a year must pay three; poorer people one florin or one- 
half. Those who had no money were required to fast, "for the kingdom 
of heaven ought not to lie more open to the rich than to the poor." The 
second grace offered was the privilege of choosing their own confessors. 
Specially reserved sins might be pardoned once in a lifetime and at the 
point of death. In cases not reserved, as often as necessary. Vows of 
pilgrimage or of a religious life might be commuted for other vows. The 
third principal grace was the participation in the spiritual goods of the 



152 "ALL ABUSE" 

church, universal and the full remission of all sins for souls in purgatory. 
Another grtfce was ''the commutation of all vows for the use of the build- 
ing of St. Peter's." (Luther and the Eeformation, by L. F. Agate.) 

Against these practices Luther nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral in 
Wittenberg, October 31, 1517. 

Cardinal Gibbons, referring to this matter, says: ''I will not deny that 
indulgences have been abused; but are not the most sacred things liable 
to be perverted? This is a proper place to refer briefly to the Bull of 
Pope Leo X. proclaiming the Indulgence which afforded Luther a pretext 
for his apostasy. Leo determined to bring to completion the magnificent 
Church of St. Peter, commenced by his predecessor^ Julius II. "With that 
view he issued a Bull proclaiming an Indulgence to such as would contribute 
some voluntary offering toward the erection of the grand cathedral. Those, 
however, w-ho contributed nothing shared equally in the treasury of the 
Church, provided they complied with the essential conditions for gaining the 
Indulgence. The only indispensable conditions enjoined by the Papal Bull 
w^ere sincere repentance and confession of sins. ' ' 

In reply to such admissions, which are made by almost every Eoman 
Catholic writer, it has been well said, ''Your doctrines of relics and indul- 
gences have no use — they are all abuse. Guard them as you may in your cate- 
chisms and books, practically they are all abuse. Millions have prayed at 
the tombs of your saints who have never offered an intelligent prayer to 
God through His Son, Millions have w'orshipped your relics who have never 
worshipped God in spirit and in truth. And millions have sought deliverance 
from sin by your penances and extreme unctions and indulgences who never 
sought it through the blood of Jesus Christ. At this hour many of your 
Churches in Eome are nothing but spiritual shops for the sale of indulgences" 
(KirAvan's Letters to Bishop Hughes). 

The author of ''The Beauties of the Catholic Church" thus defines the 
difference between ' ' plenary ' ' . and ' ' partial ' ' indulgences : "A plenary in- 
dulgence is one by which all temporary punishments are remitted, just as 
if w^e had rendered full satisfaction for them. A partial indulgence is one 
by which only a part of the debt of punishment is remitted. For instance, 
an Indulgence of seven years, or forty days, means the remission^ before 
God, of so much of the temporal punishment as would have been expiated 
in the early Church by a canonical penance of so many years or days. ' ' 

' ' Father ' ' Conway in his ' ' Question Box, ' ' answers the following ques 
tion: "Does not an indulgence of one hundred days mean that by certain 
prayers recited by the sinner one hundred days of his punishment in purgatory 
is taken of?" 

"Not at all, for the Church does not pretend to know how much of 
purgatory God remits by a partial indulgence of so many days, years, etc. 
Historically the phrase arose in reference to the canonical penances of the 
early Church w^hich were imposed for certain fixed periods. Catholics believe 
that by the gaining of what is called ' an Indulgence of one hundred days ' the 
repentant sinner does as much toward the remission of the temporal punish 
ment due by God to his sins as was done in former times by the performance 
of one hundred days of public penance." 



PUNISHMENT VS. CHASTISEMENT 153 

Thm is 1o s;i_v. Father Conway, you say one 1hin«,' ainl mean another. 
You employ lan^ua^a- which liolds forth to millions the hop(> that l)y nieetinu 
certain conditions they will shorten the torments of purgatory so much. But 
you confess that yon do not know how much credit God will allow for the 
prescribed penances. In otlier woids. you accept the price from your dupes. 
but you cannot deliver the goods. 

Arguments Against Indulgences 

We believe that the whole system of Indulgences as taught and practiced 
by the Church of Kome is contrary to the plain teachings of the word of 
God and to the great jdan of redemption which He has provided and made 
known in His everlasting Gospel. 

First, her theory as to temporal punishments which remain to be in- 
flicted after the forgiveness of sins is contrary to the Word of God. It 
confounds fatherly chastisements with judicial punishments. The forgiveness 
of sin that is oflferd in Jesus Christ is full and free. God's message to the 
penitent and believing soul is: "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy 
transgressions for Mine own sake; and will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 
48:25). "As far as east is from the west, so far hath he removed our trans- 
gressions from us'' (Ps. 103:12), Paul's declaration concerning the state 
of those who are justified through faith in Jesus Christ is: ''There is therefore 
now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). There 
are doubtless times when the Lord sends affliction upon those who are dis- 
obedient, even though they be among His true children; but these afflictions 
are sent as fatherly chastisements, not as an infliction of a judicial condemna- 
tion. Paul makes this distinction very clear in 1 Cor. 11:32: ''But when 
we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord that we may not be condemned 
with the world.'' This is a part of his argument for self-examination and 
the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. If we truly examine ourselves 
and seek the pardoning mercy and cleansing grace of our Lord Jesus, we may- 
avoid His Fatherly chastisement. The apostle shows also that it is better 
to be chastened as His children and through these chastisements delivered 
from the love and practice of sin than to be condemned with the world, with 
an everlasting condemnation. The apostle to the Hebrews strongly empha- 
sizes the plain distinction between chastisement and condemnation in Heb. 12: 
6-11: "Whom the Lord loveth He ehasteneth and scourgeth every son whom 
He receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; 
for what son is he whom the father ehasteneth not? But if ye be without 
chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons. 

No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; 

nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto 
them which are exercised thereby." 

Rome's teaching is that part of the temporal punishment which God's 
children must endure after forgiveness, must be endured in purgatorv. Thev 
use the term "temporal" as distinguished from "eternal.'' To the latter 
they ascribe no limitation, but the former is limited to the period in which 
the person must suffer during this life and in the fires of purgatory. As we 
have endeavored to show previously, there is no support for the theory of 
such purgatorial fires in the Holy Scriptures. We find no suggestion of such 



154 KO SUPERABUNDANT MEMt 

a place in the teachings of our Lord in the apostles. The few texts on whic.i 
Korae bases such a doctrine can have no reference in that direction. "Ye 
shall not come out thence until ye have paid the utmost farthing" (Matt. 5:26). 
This is evidently our I^ord 's emphatic way of declaring that he shall never 
be delivered, since he has nothing to pay. "It shall not be forgiven him 
either in this world, nor in the world, to come" (Matt. 12:32). This is an- 
other emphatic way of teaching that for those who sin the sin against the 
Holy Ghost there is no forgiveness. The other text is 1 Peter 3:19: "By 
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. ' ' Taken in its 
connection, the clearest interpretation of these words is that through Noah, 
the preacher of righteousness, Christ offered men eternal life while they lived 
upon the earth, but having rejected that offer they are now in prison, being 
shut up under chains of darkness. Over against all such supposed arguments 
in favor of a purgatory, w^e have the words of our Lord to the thief upon 
the cross, "Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise," Rome says that 
Paradise does not mean the abode of the blessed, but in 2 Cor. 12 Paul uses 
this term as synonymous with the ' ' third heavens ' ' into which he was caught 
up. Rome also answers that Christ's salvation of the thief on the cross was 
a miracle of grace and cannot be taken as indicating His ordinary method 
of dealing with His redeemed ones. Every conversion is a miracle of grace, 
and there is nothing to show that our Lord 's dealings with anyone differ 
from His usual methods of grace. The whole theory of "temporal punish- 
ments" following the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ 
is contrary to the spirit and genius of the gospel. 

Second, Rome 's system of Indulgences presupposes that the works of 
saints are not only meritorious, but in some instances super-abundant. We 
have already considered the baseless doctrine of works of supererogation, 
which is the underlying principle of the doctrine of Indulgences, I^isten to 
some of the confessions of God's eminent saints. Jacob declared, "I am not 
worthy of the least of all Thy mercies" (Gen. 32:10). Job: "I abhor myself 
and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6\ Isaiah: ".We are all as an unclean 
thing and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isa. 44:6). Paul: 
* * Christ Jesus came into he world to save sinners, of whom I am chief ' ' 
(1 Tim. 1:15). Our Lord Himself clearly teaches that the works of His 
faithful servants are without such merit as Rome claims for the deeds of 
her saints when He says, ' ' When ye shall have done all the things that are 
commanded you, say. We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which 
it was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10). 

Third, Rome 's system of Indulgences presupposes that to the Pope i.^ 
committed the guardianship of "the celestial treasury" and the dispensation 
of its wealth. This is entirely an anti-scriptural and arrogant a^s' F:prio!i. 
The Scriptures everywhere direct us to our Lord Jesus Christ as the dispenser 
of His own "unsearchable riches." John the Baptist said to his followers: 
"Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 
1:29)., Peter said, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is 
none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be 
saved" Acts 4:12), "Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the 



GOD TllS OWN DISPENSER 155 

earth; for I am God and there is iioue else" (Isa. 45:22). When Kom^ chiiins 
the right and power to dispense the gifts of God 's mercy and grace, she 
assumes the prerogative which belongs only to the Three-One God. 

Why should any soul plant its hopes on Rome's delusive, unreliable 
promises instead of upon the everlasting promises of the Eternal God? He 
has given us, not only His i)romise, but also His oath, that He will make 
good every thing that He has promised. If you cannot belie\e the word 
of God will you trust His oath? Here is His sworn testimony to us: "As 
I live, saith Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but 
would rather that all would turn unto ^lo and live. Turn ye, turji ye, why 
will you die';"' 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERxVTION 

What is the Ninth Article of the Romish Creed? 

How does Cardinal Gibbons define Romish Indulgences? 

What is meant by "temporal punishment" as thus used "o; Roman 
\riters? 

According to these teachers when may part of these temporal punishments 
be er.dired? 

What connection had this system of Indulgences with the German Refor- 
riution? 

Against M'hat did Luther protest in his Ninety-five Theses? 

What do Cardinal Gibbons and other writers admit in refer^^n.ct! to {hv^^■ 
indulgences? 

Is there any Bible foundation for the theory of "tempoiil punish rr. .jnr " 
o'^'te; forgiveness? 

What does the word of God invariably call such afflictions as God \isits 
upon His children? 

Is there any Scriptural foundation for the teaching of "temporal pun- 
ishments" beyond this life? 

Is there any Scriptural foundation for the teaching that the Pope and 
his agents have been made custodians of "the celestial treasury," by wlii.-h 
they are authorized to dispense Indulgences? 



150 NOT THE MOTHER AND MISTREiSS OF ALL 



LESSON XXI I 



ROME'S CLAIM TO BE THE MOTHER AND MISTRESS OF 

ALL CHURCHES 



''I acknowledge tlie Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Churcli for the 
Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and I promise true obedience to the 
Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar 
of Jesus Christ.'- — Article X. of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

This is one of the most unjustifiable and unwarranted claims that has 
ever been made in all the annals of mankind. It is a claim of lasting and 
absolute supremacy over all the churches of Christ upon earth. And the 
Bishop of Rome claims that he has exercised this dominion by the gift of 
Christ from the earliest planting of Christianity. The very assumption of 
the name ''The Catholic Church" by the Roman hierarchy is in keeping with 
the other unwarranted claims for which this organization has been character 
ized for centuries. In the Old Creed of the Church, that which was adopted 
by the Council of Nice, Avhich met A. D. 325, this declaration is found: ''I be- 
lieve in one Catholic and Apostolic Church." But it is the height of pie- 
sumption for Rome to claim that the Council of Nice meant by ihi.s the 
Church of Rome. Rome had no dominating voice in that council. IL was 
called together by Emperor Constantine. Bishop Sylvester of Rome rectived 
his summons to attend the council, but being too old and infirm to obey 
in person he sent two of his presbyters to represent him, Victor and Vincen- 
tius. That was indeed a remarkable assemblage. There has been none like 
it in all the history of mankind. It brought together men from remote parts 
of the world\ Among them were many who could show in their bodies marks 
of their suffering for the faith; for it had been only some twenty, years since 
the terrible Diocletian persecution, under which many suffered imprisonment 
or torture, and some of these survived to tell of the faith for which they 
had suffered in the Council of Nice. But the Church of Rome had no decid- 
ing voice in that assembly. The great champion of the ''truth as it is in 
Jesus" in that Council? was a young presbyter of Alexandria, Eg^qn, Athau 
asius by name, whose previous training and service had been confined to his 
native country. Therefore when the Council declared its faith in "riie one 
catholic and apostolic church," it surely had not in mind the bishop of Rome 
and his associates. 

First, we deny Rome's claim to be the "Mother of all Churches." How 
can such a claim be made in view of our Lord's command to His disciples 
that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto 
all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47)? There is no mention 
made here of Rome as the Mother of all Churches, where the work of evangel- 
izing the world was to begin. Neither do we find such a recognition in the 
great commission recorded in Acts 1:8: "Ye shall be My witnesses both 
in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
of the earth" The great fact which our I^ord emphasized in His directions 



THE ORIGIN OF THE CHrKCH IX KOME 157 

to His clisci[)les Avas tliat tluMr work of w ()rld-('vaii<;oli/.ation was to begin in 
that city which for a thousand years had been the central seat of the worship 
of the true God and at Avhose gates He had been crucified, as much as to 
say, "Let the first offer of salvation through My l)lood be offered to the men. 
who were instrumental in shedding that blood.'' 

Then as the gospel began to spread, and a new center of evangelization 
became necessary, it was not Kome, but Antioch in Syria, which. God chose 
for that purpose. To that city Saul of Tarsus was led. and when the church 
of Antioch had grown strong in num})ers and in efficient Christian w^orkers, 
the Spirit of God gave the commission, "Separate Me Barnabas and Saul 
for the work whereunto I have called them.'' And foreign missions in 
their most distinct sense then had their beginning. From Antioch Paul 
started out on each of his three great missionary journeys by which the 
gospel was carried to Cyprus, to Asia Minor and to Greece, and to Antioch 
he roturTied at the close of each journey to recount the wonders of grace 
v.hich God had wrought through him and those Avith whom he was asso- 
ciated. 

All this time where was the Church of Home? It was gathering stren;j,th. 
not through the planting by any of the apostles^ but evidently through the 
scattering of gospel seeds by some who were present in Jerusalem on the 
day of Pentecost, the great birthday of the Christian Church. For it is" 
recorded that among the peoples assembled in Jerusalem at that time were 
"sojourners from Kome. both Jews and proselytes" (Acts 2:10.) It was 
doubtless through the personal testimony of these "strangers from Rome'" 
that the seeds of Christianity were first ]>lanted in the imperial city, and 
through the efforts of humble vessels, such as the tent-makers, Aquila and 
Priscilla, that the work made progress in that great center of humanity. Yet 
how persistent Eome's historians are in their efforts to place the Church of 
Rome on the list oi apostolic churches,- as though it had been planted b;. 
apostolic efforts! Not inany of their acciedited authorities go the length of. 
one Catholic writer who reasons in this way: "Who founded the Church of 
Rome? It could not have been the Apostle I'aul, since we learn from his 
w^ritings that there was a church in that city before he visited it. Tiierefore 
the founder could have been no one but the apostle Peter." fhe''o is no 
ground for the tacit assumption in this argument that the Church of Rome 
was founded by any apostle. 

Not less arrogant is Rome's claim that she is "the Mistress of all Clmrok- 
es. " This assumption is as unfounded as her claim that she is "the ]\f other 
of all Churches." It is a matter worthy of inquiry: "From what source 
does this claim of supremacy come? Is it accorded to Rome by all other parts 
of Christendom?" A writer tells of reading that Paris is the great controll- 
ing capital city of the whole world, but he adds that he finds this claim n'>- 
where but in the writings of French authors. Rome is not bashful about 
urging her claim to be "the Mistress of all Churches." But there has been 
no universal recognition of it by other parts of the Church of Jesus Christ. 
Gregory the Great is reckoned by Rome as one of the purest and mightiest 
of her bishops. In the authorized list of popes he is set down as filling 



158 GREGORY AND THE ''UNIVERSAL BISHOP" 

that office between the years 590-604. When there fell under his eyes a letter 
from John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople during the years 582-595, 
in which he called himself the ' ' universal bishop, ' ' Gregory gave vent to his 
indignation in the following terms: "What wilt thou say to Christ, the Head 
of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last judgment, who by the appella- 
tion of 'universal' dost endeavor to subject all His members to thee? Whom, 
I pray, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word but him who, despis- 
ing the legions of angels constituted in fellowship with him, did endeavor 
to break forth to the top of singularity, that he might be subject to none 
and alone be over all? Who also said, I will ascend into heaven and will 
exalt my throne above the stars. For what are thy brethren, all the bishops 
of the universal Church, but the stars of heaven, to whom as yet by this 
haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself and to trample on their name, 
in comparison with thee?" (Epistles of Gregory, 4:38). On another occasion 
he wrote: "1 confidently say that whosoever calls himself universal bishop, 
or desires to be so called, does in his elation forerun Anti-Christ, because he 
proudly places himself before others" (Gregory I., Book 6, Epistle 30). In 
denouncing John the patriarch of Constantinople for so styling himself, com- 
paring him to proud Lucifer, he certainly condemns every one who might 
assume such a high-sounding title. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The 
pope (Gregory) expressely disclaims the title 'universal' for any bishop, in- 
cluding himself " (Under article "John the Faster," Vol. VIII.). What 
would Gregory have said of Boniface, the second from himself in the accredited 
list of popes who in the year 609, according to Matthew Paris, an English 
monk, solicited this title, with all the power and preferment for which it 
stood, from the Emperor Phocas who had wormed his way from the rank of 
a centurion to the emperor's throne by the murder of the rightful ruler 
Maurice and his five sons, dragging them from the church in Chalcedon, and 
' later beheading the wife of Maurice, his remaining son and three daughters? 

The supremacy of the Church of Rome has never been universally ac- 
knowledged. The Greek Church never acknowledged her pretensions. In 
the darkest ages Rome ruled only in the West, and there her dominion was 
never universal. The Christian Church had an existence in the British Isles 
long before Rome sent her messengers to convert the "Angles who ought 
to be angels." As Dr. Blakeney says: 

"Christianity was first introduced into Britain very early. Theodoret 
says, 'The Apostles persuaded even the Britons to receive the law of the 
crucified Lord' (Tom. 4, Serm. 9). He says further, that 'Paul, after having 
gone into Spain, brought salvation to the islands that lie in the ocean' (Tom 
1, in Ps. 116). He evidently alludes to the British Isles. We might quote 
many other testimonies of the earliest writers ^which prove the same. Chris- 
tianity flourished in Britain in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. Gildas 
and Bede speak with praise of the Martyrs of the British Church. Three 
Bishops from Britain attended the Council of Aries, A. D. 314. Their names 
are appended to the Acts of the Council. This is evident from the Collection 
of Councils by Labbe, the Jesuit (Edition, 1422). British Bishops were also 
present at the Council of Sardica, A. D. 347. It was in the year 596, at a time 
when the papal power was being developed, that Austin, a Monk— not the 



THE "FACT OF THE SrPREMACY" NOT A FACT 159 

Bishop of Hippo— appeared in England, and demanded that the British Church 
should conform to the rites of the Komish. The British, however, boldly 
resisted this aggression upon their rights, but were obliged to take refuge 
in Wales, where they long after maintained their independence. This is 
proved by reference to the works of Bede, the historian — Romish authority! 
(Lib. II., c. 2). Though Christianity existed in Ireland before the time of 
St. Patrick, yet he may be called the Apostle of the Irish; inasmuch as he 
was the means of firmly establishing it in the land. He died in the year 
465. The Papal supremacy was not established in Ireland until the year 
1172, when Pope Adrian, having authorised Henry II. to invade Ireland, 
the independence of the Irish Church was surrendered in the Synod of Cashel, 
which decreed that 'all Divine offices be henceforth regulated, in all parts of 
the Irish Church, after the pattern of the Holy Church, according as it is 
done in the Church of England' (Gerald. Camb. Hibernia Expurgata, c. 34). 
Thus the old churches of Brita:r and Ireland, in the very early ages, were 
unconnected with the Papncy. The Church of Rome never ruled the whole 
Church. ' ' 

A Roman writer appeals to the "fact of the supremacy,'' but the fact 
never existed. The Greek Church never admitted the dogma, and today more 
than half of Christendom rejects the empty boast. The same writer says, 
"God's words are proved by their results." But the results in this case 
are far from sabstar.ti&ting Rome 's claims. 

With equal emphasis do we reject Rome 's claim to be the Holy Apostolic 
Church. We do not deny that there have been, and still are, in it many devout 
and earnest souls who have striven or are now striving after holiness of 
character. What we deny is that the Church of Rome as a body is entitled 
to be called the Holy Roman Catholic Church. We charge against her thf-t 
her established relations concerning the confessional and the celibacy of the 
clergy have led to great immorality in the lives of many who are brought 
•inder her influence. Upon her skirts there also rests the blood of thousands 
of God's martyrs w^ho were cruelW tortured and slain because they dared 
to witness for the truth. Even to this day Rome has never rescinded the 
countless bulls of popes calling for the extermination of those whom she 
regards as heretics. Honorius III. (1216) published a bull approving of the 
laws of the emperor for the extermination of heretics. Innocent IV. published 
a bull to the same effect. Alexander IV. (1524) published a bull for the 
appointment of officers to discharge the functions of the Inquisition against 
heretics. And many of their successors have issued similar or even severer 
decrees. For the fruits of such enactments we point you to the massacre of 
St. Bartholomew^, the fires of Smithfield, the tortures and auto de fes of Spain. 
Rome takes to herself the mystic name Babylon given in the Revelation. Let 
her also accept the description of her deeds — "drunk with the blood of the 
saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (Rev, 17:6). 

Rome boasts of her unity and claims to be the fulfillment of our Lord 's 
prayer in John 17:21: "That they all may be one, even as Thou, Father, art 
in Me and I in Thee; that they also may be in us, that the world may believe.'"' 
The Church of Rome is the most completely organized system on the face of the 
earth today. If corporate unity is what our Lord meant in this prayer, then 



160 THE CHCJRCH OF ROME NOT A UNIT 

Rome might have some shadow of support for her claim. But the unity for 
which Christ ])rayed must l)e first of all a unity in Jesus Christ, every member 
being united to Him as the branch is to^the vine. The purpose of this prayer 
,is stated by pur Lord, "That the world may believe.'' Has this purpose been 
realized in lands where the dornination of Rome has been most complete — in 
Italy, France, Spain, Austria, South America, Mexico? Has the result of her 
oneness been that all mankind has turned from the darkness of sin to lov> 
and good works? Let the history of these lands during the past centuries 
answer. Besides, let it ever be remembered that Rome's boasted unity is a 
mere sham and pretense. Cardinal Manning wrote to Monsignor Talbot: "It is 
well that the Protestaiit worki does not know how our work is hindered by 
domestic strife'' (Purcell's Life of Manning, Vol. 2, pages 80^ 81). 

Rome herself has been the most fruitful souice of disunion among the 
followers of Jesus. Through her failure to preser\e the truth as it was once 
delivered to the saints, through her persecution of those who were seeking to 
rediscover and republish the truth, through her excommunication and extermi- 
nation of those who loved the truth of God and who sought to m,ake it known, 
Rome has sown discord and strife and alienation in the world. 

The true Apostolic Church is the Church that "continues in the apostles 
fellowship and doctrines, in prayers and in the breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42). 



QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What is the tenth article of the Romish Creed? 

Can these claims of Rome be called modest or reasonable? 

What do you say about her claim o be the "mother of all churches?" 

Where did our Lord command His disciples to begin to preach? 

In what city was the first Christian church planted? 

What became the next great center for the distribution of gospel light? 

How was the gospel first carried to Rome? 

Have the churches of Christ ever universally recognized Rome's supremacy'^ 

How did Gregory the Great consider the title of universal bishop? 

From whom did the second in descent from him solicit this title? 

Has the Greek Church ever recognized Rome's pretensions? 

Can Rome rightly claim to have planted the Christian Church in the Brit- 
ish Isles? 

Are Rome's claims to holiness any more solidly supported than her claims 
to be the mother and mistress of churches? 

What description is given of her in Rev. ]7? 

Can she rightly claim to be the fulfillment of John 17:21? 

How" has she been guilty of schism in the body of Christ, dividing His 
followers into ranks and classes? 

Has Rome 's unity been such as to lead the w^orld to believe in the Lord 
Jesus Christ and to find life through His name? 

What is the true Apostolic Church? 



PETER'S PRIMACY Ifil 

I.KSSON XXI 11. 
PETER'S PRIMACY 

''I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter 
Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ." — Article X. of the Creed 
of Pope Pius IV. 

The primacy of Peter is onl}^ one link in a chain of declarations by which 
the Roman Pontiffs claim supremacy over the world. Part of the decree of 
tht Vatican Council, held in Rome, 1870, is that "according to the testimony 
of the Gospel, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church was promised 
immediately and directly to the blessed Peter the Apostle, and was conferred 
upon him." To which is added, "What the Chief Pastor and Great Shepherd 
of the sheep, the Lord Jesus Christy instituted in the purpose of the Blessed 
Peter, the Apostle, for the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, 
this must bj' the institution of Christ last forever in the Church, which, being 
founded on a rock, shall remain ever firm to the end of the world." Aid ti. 
this another canon is added: "If. any one shall say that it is not by the 
institution of Christ, our Lord Himself, that is, by divine right, that Blosse-d 
Peter has an unbroken line of successors in the primacy over the whole Church, 
or that the Roman Pontiff is not the sucessor of Blessed Peter in the same 
primacy, let him be accursed." 

Putting together the various declarations of this and other Councils, the 
claims of the Church of Rome concerning the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff 
may be stated in the following terms: 

"First, that in the course of His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus confer 
red on Simon Peter a primacy of jurisdiction and authority over the rest of the 
Twelve as well as over the whole Church, so that he was entitled to their 
obedience and submission; 

"Secondly, that this primacy was not to be confined to Peter, but was to 
be transmitted through him to an uninterrupted line of successors for all the 
later history of the Church; 

"Thirdly, that by the Lord's special guidance and under His divine 
sanction, the Apostle Peter became. Bishop or chief ruler at Rome and died 
in the occupancy of that See; and 

"Fourthly, that by the authority of the Lord, Peter did actually entrust 
to all the future occupants of that bishopric, the same jurisdiction over the 
whole Church of Christ that had been committed to him and that he himself 
had wielded." ("The Principles of Protestantism" by J. P. Lilley, D. D.). 

Four passages of Scripture are used by Romanists in their efforts to 
establish the primacy of Peter: 

1. The Rock Text. "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I wall build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
aaginst it" (Matt. 16:18.) This w^as ovr Lord's answer to Peter's open 
confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Three different 
interpretations have been given to the words of Christ, "and upon this rock 
I will build My church." (1) That He referred to the confession which 



162 THE KOCK TEXT 

Peter had just made. It is well known that two forms of the Greek word foi* 
rock are here employed. "Thou art Petros and upon this petra 1 will build," 
etc. The former means a stone which is capable of being moved, the latter 
denotes the bed rock w-hich is fixed immovably in the earth. The temple in 
Jerusalem rested upon a great bed rock w^hich covered acres of ground. Upon 
this immovable bed the great stones used in building the temple were placed. 
Evidently our Lord had a purpose in changing from the one form to the otlier. 
This is more manifest when we keep in mind the demonstrative pronoun, taute— - 
"this rock." Had he intended to signify Peter as the rock on which. His 
church was to be built, would He not have said, ' ' Thou art the rock man, and 
upon thee will I build My church?" The use of the word "this rock" most 
naturally refers to the confession which Peter had just made. (2) A second 
interpretation is that our Lord meant Himself by the rock of which He spoke. 
There is practically little difference between this and the former interpretation; 
for Peter's confession virtually acknowledged Jesus Christ as the Eternal, 
Unmovable On.e upon Whom all things depend. The first interpretation has 
this distinction, that it implies that the Church rests upon Christ as revealed 
and recognized and acknowledged. Eor it is only in proportion as mankind 
come to know, acknowledge and trust in Him that His church is established 
and extended in the world. In support of these interpretations thus mutually 
explanatory of each other, we may well cite the words of the apostle Paul: 
"Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ." (1 Cor. .3:11). "That rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10:4). Also the 
words of the Apostle Peter himself: "To whom coming as unto a living 

stone ye also as living stones, are built up a spiritual house" (1 Peter 

2:4, 5). (3) A third interpretation, and that on w^hich Rome chiefly bases her 
claim for Peter's supremacy, is that the apostle Peter was the rock upon 
which Jesus declared He would build His Church. There is a sense in which 
Peter was one of the foundation stones on which the Church was built, but not 
upon Peter exclusive of the other apostles. At a later time our Lord recognized 
all the apostles as having equal authority: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall 
be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). Jt w^as in recognition of the place of 
authority and influence given by our Lord to His apostles that Paul says in 
Ephesians 2:20: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone." On the same 
principle it is written in Revelation 21:14: "And the walls of the city had 
twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the 
Lamb. ' ' The Apostles were all foundation stones, each resting upon the great 
bed rock Jesus Christ, in the sense that being close to Him they came to 
know His mind and will and were His instruments in proclaiming to th3 
world the principles upon which His everlasting Kingdom was established. 

One of the earlier declarations of the Creed we are now studying is 
"Neither will I ever take and interpret them (the Scriptures) otherwise 
than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers" (Article II, Creed of 
Pius IV.). In the Vatican Council, Bishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, was ready 
to show that in a collection of testimonies from the "fathers" concerning 
this disputed text only about seventeen favored the interpretation that Peter 



THE KEY TEXT 163 

was the rock upon Avhich Christ built His church, while about seventy held 
either the first or the second of the interpretations given above. 

2. The Key Text. "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven; and whatsover thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and 
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).' 
The grant of the keys to Peter is quoted in proof of his supremacy. A key is 
a figure and implies a door. Peter used the keys when he opened the door of 
the gospel churoh, first to the Jewish world on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 
41) and again when he opened the kingdom to the Gentile world as he preached 
the gospel in the house of Cornelius in Cesarea and baptized those who con- 
fessed His name (Acts 10 and 11). Our Lord Himself used this figure 
elsewhere in speaking of the communication of knowledge. Speaking of the 
Jewish scribes or lawyers who had withheld from the people the true knowl- 
edge of the w^ord of God, Jesus said, "Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have 
taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves and them that 
were entering in ye hindered" (Luke 11:52). We have no disposition to de- 
tract from the honor or the responsibility which our Lord placed upon His 
servant Peter when He placed in his hand the key of knowledge, which he so 
faithfully used in opening the kingdom to both Jew and Gentile. But that 
He did not place in his hands the key as a token of universal supremacy 
is evident from many considerations. 

(1) Our Lord retains in His own hand the key of government. Hear 
His own words spoken to John on Patmos: "These things said He that is holy, 
he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shut- 
teth; and shutteth and no man openeth" (Rev. 3:7). Recall also these words: 
"I am alive forevermore, and have the keys of hell and of death" (Rev. 1:18). 

(2) Whatever authority was conferred upon Peter as to binding and 
loosing was afterward bestow^ed equally upon the other apostles, as recorded 
in Matthew 18:18. We have already seen that the apostles together exercised 
this authority in loosing the church of the Christian dispensation from the 
ceremonial obligations which bound the Jews under the old dispensation, and 
binding upon them the principles of purity, righteousness and love. 

(3) Peter himself never claimed supremacy or superiority over his 
brethren. Recall his own words: "The elders which are among you I exhort, 
who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ" (1 Peter 5:1). 
He called himself an elder and a witness, but nowhere the Vicar of Jesus 
Christ upon earth. 

(4) His supremacy was nowhere recognized by the other apostles. If 
he had been appointed as the head of the whole Church, he would have sent 
others here and there to do his bidding. On the contrary Peter was sent by 
the other apostles. * ' When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that 
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John" 
(Acts 8:14). Think of "His Holiness," the pope, being sent by the cardinals 
to Paris or Berlin to preach the gospel! 

(5) In the Council held in Jerusalem, James, not Peter, acted as the 
presiding officer and it was "the sentence of James" that was sent throughout 
the churches TActs 15:6-29). 



164 THE CONFIRMATION TEXT 

(6) Peter, James and John are called pillars in tlie church. "James, 
Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars" (Gal. 2:9). How could Peter be a 
pillar and be foundation at the same time. In the same conneetioii we are 
told that Paul withstood Peter to the face, "because he was to be blamed" 
(Gal. 2:11). How does this compbrt with the idea of his being an infallible 
pope with supreme authority? 

(7) Paul was always deeply humble because of his own persecution of 
the followers of Jesus, calling himself the chief est of sinners, and "not fit to 
be an apostle;" yet so far as his authority was concerned he was bold to 
declare that "he was not a whit behind the very cMefest apostles" (2 Cor. 
11:5). How does such a declaration agree with the notion of Peter's being 
supreme in authority over his brethren? 

(8) When Paul catalogues the various officers of the church, he does 
not begin, ' ' First, the chief apostle or Vicar of Jesus Christ " or " the Father 
of Kings and Princes," but: "Apostles and prophets, evangelists, pastors 
and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). 

(9) Our Lord distinctly warned His disciples against claiming or exercis- 
ing superiority one over another. "Neither be ye called masters, for one is 
your Master, even Christ. He that is greatest among you shall be your ser- 
vant." (Matt. 23:10, llj. "Whosoever of you would be the chiefest shall be 
servant of all, for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but 
to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:44, 45). 

(10) The other apostles certainly did not understand their Lord to mean 
that Peter was to wield a supremacy over them. On' their way back from 
Cesarea Philippi, where our Lord spoke the words, ' ' Upon this rock will 
I build My Church, ' ' the disciples were wrangling over the question, ' ' Which 
of us shall be the greatest'?'' When He asked them, "What were ye disputing 
about by the way?" they were ashamed at first, then they came to Him with 
the question, "Which of us shall be the greatest?" If they had thought 
that He meant to place Peter at the head of their band, would they have 
asked this question? As shown above, His answer taught clearly that no 
one should seek supremacy over the rest. 

3. The Confirmation Text. "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold 
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have 
prayer for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, 
strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:31, 32). Rome translates the latter clause, 
"Confirm thy brethren." We submit that a candid reading of these words of 
our Lord do not convey any thought of Peter's supremacy over his brethren, 
but the very reverse. They were a prediction of his sad fall against Avhich 
Jesus faithfully warned him. Here he is reminded that only through th.» 
intercessions of his Lord would he be preserved from making utter ship- 
wreck. He is also exhorted to do all in his power after his restoration to 
counteract the evil influence of his denial by encouraging his brethren to 
continue true and steadfast. 

4. The Restoration Text. Another passage frequently employed by Rome's 
advocates in defense of Peter 's primacy are the gracious words recorded in 
John 21:15-17 by which Peter was recommissioned as a pastor in the presence 
of a number of his fellow disciples. Three times, beside a fire of coal in the 



THE RESTORATION TEXT 1(>5 

court of the high priest's palace, Peter had denied that he knew his Lord. 
Three times beside a fire of coal on the shore of lake Galilee, Jesus asked him 
the question, " Lovest thou Me?" the question becoming more searching with 
each repetition, as appears especially in the different Greek words employed. 
The effect of this searching examination was not the conferring of greater 
dignity and authority upon this apostle in the presence of his brethren. We 
are told that Peter was grieved because Jesus said unto him the third time. 
"Lovest thou Me'" The effect of the Lord's words was to produce humilia- 
tion and grief, not elation over an advancement to greater authority and 
dignity. 

QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

What is the teaching of Rome concerning the primacy of Peter I 

What four texts of Scripture are chiefly used in support of this dogma! 

What does Jesus say in the rock text? 

What various interpretations have been given to these words f 

What are the different significations of the words " petros " and "petra''t 

Do the "fathers" gi\e unanimous testimony to the interpretation that 
Peter was the rock on which Christ founded His church? 

What does Paul testify concerning the rock? 

What testimony does Peter himself give in his first epistle? 

In what sense were all the apostles foundation stones? 

What does our Lord say in the "Key text?" 

To what kind of key does pur Lord refer in Luke 11:52? 

When did Peter effectively use the key of knowledge? 

Did our Lord confer upon any one the key of universal government? 

What authority was equally shared by all the apostles? 

Did Paul ever acknowledge that he was inferior in authority to Peter 
(2 Cor. 11:5). 

Is the office of Vicar or Chief Apostle ever given in the catalog of church 
ofticers .' 

Against what spirit did our Lord frequently warn his apostles? 

What other texts are used by Rome in support of Peter's primacy? 

Do these texts confer added authority, or a deeper humiliation! 



166 WAS PETER BISHOP OF ROME? 

LESSON XXIV. 



BISHOPS OF ROME NOT PETER'S SUCCESSORS 

"I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church for the 
Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and I promise true obedience to the 
Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of 
Jesus Christ." (Article X. of ^he Creed of Pope Pius IV). 

We have already seen that even though the supremacy of Peter over the 
other apostles and ministers of Christ were established, this would not substan- 
tiate Rome 's claim for spiritual dominion unless she can show^ also that her 
Pontiffs are the real and true successors of that Apostle and inheritors of the 
power which he is supposed to have possessed. We believe it has been clearly 
shown that no such primacy as Rome claims for him was ev^er bestowed by 
our Lord upon the apostle Peter. If this be true, then all h^r minims of 
authority in view of being his successors must fall to the ground. But even 
though his supremacy were sufficiently established, it still remains for Rome 
to prove that the Apostle Peter became Bishop or chief ruler, at Rome and 
died in occupancy of that See; and also that by the authority of the Lord 
Jesus the said Apostle did actually commit to the future occupants of that 
bishopric the same jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ that had been 
committed to him and that he himself had wielded. 

First, it devolves upon Rome to establish the fact that Peter exercised 
the office of Bishop or Pope in the city of Rome. Her claim is that he filled 
that position for a period of twenty-five years. The generally received ac- 
count among Roman Catholics, one w^hich can claim a long traditional accept- 
ance, is that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, that is, A. D. 
42, and that he held the See for twenty-five years, a length of episcopacy 
never reached again until during the pontificate of Pope Pius IX, who ex- 
ceeded it in duration. In the Catholic Encyclopedia it is stated: "It is widely 
held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously 
liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that by 'another place' to w^hich he 
departed (Acts 12:17), Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special 
reasons. It is not impossible that Peter paid a missionary visit to Rome 
about this time. We cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronology 
in Eusebius and Jerome, since^ although these notices extend back to the 
chronicles of the third century, they are not old tradition, but the result of 
calculation on the basis of episcopal history. Into the Roman list of Bishops 
dating from the second century there was introduced in the third century 
the notice of a twenty-five year pontificate for St. Peter." Unless it can be 
shown that Peter's residence in Rome extended over a considerable period. 
there is no ground for the Roman claim, that he acted as bishop over that 
city. Unless it can be shown that it was a case of * ' absenteeism. ' ' But in 
Roman Catholic and Episcopal circles, an absentee bishop has a very un- 
savory name. If a man is considered worthy to fill that position, it is 
expected of him that he reside within the precincts of his bishopric, what- 
ever the trials and hardships to which this may subject him, 



ABSENTEEISM ItiT 

The only scrap of Bible authority for Peter's residence and bishopric 
in R(»nie is found in the closing sahitation of hia first epistle: "She that 
is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you" (1 Peter 5:13). This 
is an admission on the part of Rome that the Babylon of which John 
speaks in the Revelation, on which such severe judgment was pronounced 
because of its great corruption, is to be regarded as a Biblical name for 
Rome, which she is at times very loath to admit. But the Book of the 
Revelation is a highly figurative or emblematic book from beginning to 
end, while the epistles of Peter are of the more didactic character. It 
is scarcely reasonable to understand that in an epistle of such a character Peter 
would employ figurative or emblematic names in giving a post mark to 
an epistle. Besides there are evidences that Peter actually visited Babylon 
in the East and preached the gospel there, and that it was from that center 
that he wrote this epistle. The very dedication of the letter in the 
opening verses seems to favor this idea. Greetings are sent to the dis- 
persed of Israel in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia, places 
located chiefly in Asia Minor. But no mention is made of those who 
w^ere dispersed in the far east. If Peter were himself in that eastern dis- 
trict when he wrote his letter, we have an explanation made why he sent 
no greetings to the people in that locality. 

Another evidence that seems to disprove Rome 's claim that Peter had 
1 protracted residence in Rome, is the absence of all reference to him by 
Paul in his letters to and from that city. In the closing chapter of his 
Epistle to Rome salutations are sent to twenty-six persons w^hom Paul men- 
tions by name. The time of writing this epistle was near the close of Paul's 
third missionary journey, which would be clearly within the period which 
Romanist advocates name as the probable time of Peter 's pontificate in that 
city. Is it not strange that Paul would name so many members of the 
Church and yet make no reference to its Bishop or Pope? Five years later 
Paul is himself a prisoner in Rome, and during his captivity he wrote several 
of his epistles — Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon — in which 
he sends the greetings of numerous people in Rome to those whom he was 
addressing, but nowhere does he mention Pope Peter as one who joined with 
him in sending messages of cheer and hope. After another period, Paul is 
prisoner for the last time in that city. He is writing his farewell letter 
to Timothy, knowing that the time of his departure is now at hand. We find 
him saying in that letter: ''At my first offence no one took my part, but 
all forsook me; may it not be laid to their account" (2 Tim. 4:16). Rather 
hard on Pope Peter, to think that he had no sympathy to offer Christ 's 
prisoner at such an hour. "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring 
him with thee." Where is Peter now? Evidently a case of "absenteeism," 
if he was filling the bishopric of Rome at that time. And Rome's tradition 
is that Peter and Paul were both martyred on the same day. The evidence 
of Peter's companionship with Paul during his imprisonment seems very 
slight in view of Paul's own letters. It still remains for Rome to prove 
that Peter exercised the office of bishop in that city — not merely that he 
may have visited it and suffered martyrdom there. 

The evidence of Peter's martyrdom in Rome rests upon scattered tra- 



168 SPURIOUS WRITINGS 

ditions. Even granting that these traditions arc correct, what has Ronu^ 
to show ill favor of her claim that by the revealed will of Jesus Christ the 
Bishops of Rome were appointed as his apostolic successors, including uni- 
versal supremacy over the Church? There surely was not universal recognition 
of such authority during the early centuries of the Christian Church. We 
have already seen (in ].esson 22) how Gregory the Great revolted from the 
thought of any one calling himself "Universal Bishop." If such a claim 
on the part of the Bishops of Rome was recognized in other parts of the 
Church, then why w^ere not disputed points referred to him for settlement 
instead of calling councils for this purpose? The fact is that Rome had a 
long struggle to come into the possession of the power which, she eventually 
attained, and this was not done without resort to forgery and fraud. Three 
documents served a very large part in building up the Roman hierarchy and 
giving to h.er the mighty sway in matters both spiritual and temporal Avhich 
she possessed in the Middle Ages. These articles were (1) the Pseudo-Clem- 
entine writings, including the so-called "Second Clementine Epistles to the 
Corinthians" and two Epistles to the Virgin. Each of these documents strongly- 
supported the claims of the Roman Bishop. The w^riter in the Catholic En- 
cyclopedia says: "Many critics have believed them genuine, for they were 
known in the fourth century to St. Epiphanius and St. Jerome. But it is 
now admitted on all hands that they cannot be by the same author as the 
genuine epistles to the Corinthians. ' ' 

Second, "The Donation of Constantine. " Again w^e quote from the 
Catholic Encyclopedia: "By this name is understood a forged document 
of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich pos- 
sessions were conferred upon the pope. It is addressed by Constantine to 
Pope Sylvester (314-325) and consists of two parts. In the first part he 
relates how he was instructed in the Christian faith by Pope Sylvester, makes 
a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope 
and how lie was cured of leprosy. In the second part, Constantine is made 
to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following possessions: The pri- 
macy over the four patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and 

Jerusalem, and over all the bishops in the world The pope shall enjoy 

the same honorary rights as the emperor, among them the right to wear ai 
imperial crown, a purple cloak and tunic, and all imperial insignia or signs 
of distinction,'' etc. The same writer adds, "This document is w-ithout doubt 
a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early 
as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal 
Nicholas of Cusa spoke of it fs '>. dictamen apocryphum. Some years later. 
Lorenzo Valla proved the forgery with certainty," etc. 

Third, The False Decretals of the Pseudo-Isodore. These Decretals, ac- 
cording to the same authority, consisted of: (1) Sixty apocryphal letters 
attributed to Popes from St. Clement to Melchiades (from 88 to 314). (2^ 
A treatise on the Primitive Church and the Council of Nice. (3) Letters 
of thirty-three popes, from Sylvester to Gregory 11. All of these documents 
strongly supported the claims of the Roman Bishops and the Roman Church. 
The Encyclopedia says, "Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called 



THE FALSE DECRETALS ir.l* 

papal letters are forgeries. The Middle Ages were deceived by this huge 
forgery, but during the Kenaissance the canonists generally began to recog- 
nize the fraud. Suspicion began to grow. In 1G28 the Protestant Blondel 
published his decisive study, ' Pseudo-Isodorus and Turrianus vapulantes.' 
Since then the apocryphal nature of the decretals has been an established 
fact. The last of the false decretals that had escaped the keen criticism of 
Blondel was pointed out by the Catholic priests, the brothers Ballerini, in 
the eighteenth century." 

According to Rome's own testimony, these fraudulent documents were 
in existence from the eighth or ninth century to the fifteenth or eighteenth 
century, and during this period of seven hundred years were used for all 
that was in them in the support of Roman claims. And it was during these 
years that the Roman Church attained to her greatest power, both ecclesiast- 
ical and political. This is the way *' Father" Conway answers a question 
in reference to these spurious documents: 

"In fact there is not a single prerogative or privilege of Rome asserted 
in the False Decretals which was not generally recognized as the common 
law of the Christian Church. They changed nothing, altered nothing, added 
nothing; at most they only put into convenient shape what was before less 
easy of access, and so helped to popularize a doctrine which was sometimes 
forgotten by local prelates, and to keep before their minds that dependence 
on the Holy See which is the central doctrine of Catholic ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline The popes saw them disappear with perfect equanimity, for 

their power rested not on them, but on the words of Christ" (Question Book, 
pp. 294, 295). 

Yes, Rome admits now, and has admitted since the light was turned 
on, that all these documents were fraudulent. But Rome has never given back 
the goods which she obtained through these False Decretals and other spurious 
papers. If I were to receive a forged check for a thousand dollars, given 
to me without any right or title to what it represents, and I avail myself 
of the money for which it stands, would I not be under obligations to make 
restitution for that which I thus unlawfully received? But when has Rome 
shown any disposition to make restitution of the unwarranted pretensions 
and powers which she came into at least a fuller possession of by means 
of these forged documents? 

There is one respect in which Roman councils and pontiffs are the true 
successors of Peter. In Mark 14:71 Ave read: "But he began to curse and 
to swear, I know not the man." The word translated curse is "anathema- 
tize," a word which enters so largely into Rome's canonical literature. The 
Council of Trent enacted 126 canons and five decrees on original sin, and 
each decree and canon is followed by Peter's curse, even Peter's word, trans- 
ferred into Latin — anathema sit. The last words uttered in that Council by 
its bishops was a response to the Cardinal of Lorraine, who exclaimed, "A 
curse upon all heretics" (anathema cunctis hereticis), and in response the 
bishops answered, "Let them be accursed" (anathema, anathema!).' Dr. 
William Cathcart, who refers to this in "The Papal System," adds, "If the 
succession to Peter fails in some things, it can be stoutly maintained in ref- 



170 THE SPIRIT OF PETER LACKING 

eicnce to cursing, by the testimony of every papgll canon published for many 

centuries. ' ' 

One of the best evidences that the popes of Rome are not the successors 
of the Apostle Peter, is the difference in the spirit and lives of these men 
and of Christ's chosen and honored servant. As Ambrose said, ''They have 
not the inheritance of Peter who have not the faith of Peter. ' ' To which 
Dr. Blakeney adds, ''Were the humble, laborious, spiritual-minded apostle 
Peter to come on earth, would he acknowledge as his successor the proud 
pontiff who wears the triple crown; who is borne on the shoulders of the 
people and placed on the high altar of worship; who is 'called God and 
worshiped;' who was surrounded by foreign bayonets dyed with the blood of 
his flock?" — a picture which applied aptly to each of a long line of Popes 
up to the time of the downfall of their temporal power. 

QUESTIONS FOR CLASS CONSIDERATION 

If the primacy of Peter is not sustained, what becomes of the claims of 
the Popes to supremacy? 

Even if his primacy were established, what remains for Rome to prove? 

Is there any positive evidence that Peter ever resided in Rome? 

Would a mere visit to that city, even martyrdom in it, prove that he 
exercised a bishopric there? 

According to tradition, how^ long did his bishopric last? 

What text is cited by Rome in support of their claim? 

Is it likely that Peter would use a name in a figurative sense as the 
date-mark of a didactic epistle? 

Even if Peter 'a bishopric in Rome were established, is there any evidence 
that he appointed the bishops of Rome as his successors? 

Were these bishops recognized in the early Christian Church as the 
vicars of Christ? 

Were important matters in doctrine and worship referred to them for 
siettlement? 

Did the Pope of Rome have a controlling voice in the early councils? 

What were the Pseudo-Clementine Writings? "The Donation of Con- 
stantine"? "The False Decretals"? 

What does Rome herself now acknowledge concerning all these writings? 

What claim is made by "Father" Conway concerning them? 

Is it likely that these had no part in establishing and extending the 
Roman hierarchy? 

Has she ever given back the goods obtained through these spurious writ- 
ings ? 

In what respect are Councils and Popes true successors to Peter? 

In what respect are the popes not his successors? 



THE CREED Ol' PITS IV. FORBIDDEN 171 

LKSSON XXV. 
THE DECREES OF COUNCILS 



"I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, 
defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general Councils, and par- 
ticularly by the Holy Council of Trent; and I condemn, reject, and anathema- 
tize all things contrary thereto and all heresies which the Church condemned, 
rejected and anathematized." — Article XL, Creed of Pope Pius IV. 

This is a wholesale acceptance of the decrees and canons of the councils 
recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. When we come to compare the 
deliverances of one Council with another, we shall find it a most difficult 
undertaking to receive them all, so self-contradictory are they in many 
respects. The very existence of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. is a contradic- 
tion ' of the deliverance of earlier Councils. The oldest of the recognized 
Councils was that which was held in the city of Nice, Bythinia, in the year 
H25. At that Council the following Creed was adopted: 

The Nicene Creed 

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth 
and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
only Begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of 
God, Light of light, the very God of very God, begotten, not made, being 
of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for 
us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate 
by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; and was made Man; and was cruci- 
fied also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the 
third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into 
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come 
again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom 
shall have no end. 

"And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who 
proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the 
Son together, is worshiped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets. 

"And I believe in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge 
one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the 
dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." 

If the Church of Rome still maintained this old Nicene Creed, not going 
beyond the truths herein contained, not violating nor transgressing any of 
them, but true to them in faith and practice, then might she be entitled to 
be called a catholic and an apostolic church; for her faith and practice 
then ring true to the doctrines and example of the apostles. But there is 
not a principle in this old Creed that is not violated and contradicted by 
the present teachings and practices of the Church of Rome. 

We have said that the very existence of her more modern Creed is a 
contradiction of the decrees of her earlier councils. The ancient Church, in 
a general Council, positively prohibited any addition to or substitute for 



172 ROMAN LIST OF COUNCILS 

the Nicene Creed. In the Comicil of Ephesiis, held A. D. 431, the foUoAving 
decree Avas formulated and enacted: 

''These things having been read, the Holy Synod decree, that it should 
be lawful for no one to profess, to write, or to compose any other form of 
faith than that defined by the Holy Fathers who, with the Holy Ghost, had 
been assembled at Nice. But those who shall have dared to compose, or to 
profess, or to offer any other form of faith to those wishing to be eon- 
verted to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from paganism or Juda- 
ism, or from any sort of heresy; that these, if they were bishops or clergymen, 
that the bishops should be deposed from their episcopacy and the clergy 
from their clerical office; but that if they were laymen, thej^ should be sub- 
jected to anathema." 

So we see that the Third Council positively prohibited any addition to 
or substitute for the Nicene Creed. Accordingly that Creed continued to 
be the formula of faith even in the Western Church., until the sixteenth 
century. False doctrines and error had been introduced from time to time, 
but the progress of error being gradual, the peculiar dogmas of the Church 
of Rome were never embodied in the form of a Creed until A. D. 1564, when 
Pope Pius IV. first promulgated the formula which now bears his name.^ 
So we say that the existence of the later Creed which we have been studying 
is a violation of one of the solemn decrees of the Third General Council. 

There are some differences of opinion as to what assemblages are entitled 
to be called General (-ouncils. We present first the list as given by Dr. J. 
Wilhelm, in the Catholic Encj^clopedia: 

1. The first Ecumenical, or Council of Nice, held A. D. 325. It lasted 
two months and twelve days. 818 bishops were present. Emperor Constan- 
tino was also present. 

2. The Second Ecumenical Council, or First General Council of Con- 
stantinople, held A. D. 381. It was attended by 150 bishops. 

3. The third Ecumenical, or Council of Ephesus, held A. D. 431, was at- 
tended by 200 bishops and presided over by Cyril, of Alexandria. 

4. The fourth Ecumenical, or Council of Chalcedon, held A. D. 451. 
150 bishops were present. 

5. The fifth Ecumenical or Second General Council of Constantinople, 
held A. D. 553, attended by 165 bishops. It confirmed the first four General 
Councils. 

6. The sixth Ecumenical, or Third Council of Constantinopl.e, A. D. 680- 
681, was attended by 174 bishops and the Emperor, Constantine Pogonatus. 

7. The seventh Ecumenical, or Second Council of Nice, was convoked 
bj^ Emperor Constantine VI, and his mother Irene. Between 300 and 367 
bishops were present. 

8. The eighth Ecumenical, or Fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 
869, Av'as attended by 103 bishops, 3 papal legates and four patriarchs. 

9. The ninth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 1123, was the first held in 
the Lateran at Rome under Pope Callistus II., about nine hundred bishops and 
abbots being present. 



COUNCILS, CONTINUED 17;{ 

10. Tlic tonth KcunuMiical Coum-il. A. D. WMK was tlH> sc.mmi.I Lalcran 
held at Koino, with an attoiidaiu'c of about 1. (»(»() prelates. 

11. The eleventh Ecumenical Council. A. D. 1179, was the third Coun- 
cil that met in the Eateran, Rome. There ^vere present 'M)2 bishops. It 
condemned the Albigenses and the Waldenses. 

12. The twelfth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 1215, was the Fourth Lateran. 
There were present the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 arch- 
bishops, 412 bishops and 800 abbots. Dr. Wilhelm says: "This was the most 
important council of the middle ages; it marks the culminating point of ec- 
clesiastical life and papal power. ' ' 

13. The thirteenth Ecumenical, A. D. 1245, was the first General Council 
of Lyons. 

1-4. The Fourteenth Ecumenical Council was also held in Lyons in the 
year 1274. It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with the 
Church of Rome. 

15. The fifteenth Ecumenical Council took place at Vienne, France, A. 
D. 1311-1313. 

16. The Council of Constance, A. D. 1314-1318, was the Sixteenth Ecu- 
menical. It was held during the great schism of the West, with the object 
of ending divisions in the church. It succeeded in putting an end to the 
schism by the election of Pope Martin V. The rightful Pope confirmed the 
former decrees of the Synod against Wycliffe and Huss. "This Council is 
only Ecumenical in its last sessions." 

17. The seventeenth Ecumenical Council met at Basle, in 1431. Its object 
was the religious pacification of Bohemia. It is considered Ecumenical by the 
Church of Rome only to the end of the tw^enty-fifth session. 

18. The Eighteenth Ecumenical, or Fifth Council of the Lateran, met 
from 1512 to 1517, under Popes Julius II. and Leo X. Fifteen Cardinals and 
about eighty archibishops and bishops took part in it. 

19. The Council of Trent, the nineteenth Ecumenical, lasted eighteen 
years, (1545-15(i3) under five popes. There were present five cardinal legates, 
three Patriarchs, thirty-three arch-bishops, 235 bishops, seven abbots, seven 
generals of monastic orders, 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to 
condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other reformers. "Of all 
Councils," says Dr. Wilhelm, "it lasted longest, issued the largest number 
of decrees and produced the most beneficial results." 

20. "The twentieth Ecumenical Council was summoned to the Vatican 
by Pius IX. It met December 8, 1869, and lasted until July 18th, 1870, when 
it was adjourned, and it is still unfinished. There were present, six Arch- 
bishops-princes, 49 Cardinals, 11 Patriarchs, 680 arch-bishops and bishops, 28 
abbotts, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating 
to the state and constitution of the Church, the Council decreed the infallibility 
of the Pope." 

We now present a classification and an enumeration given by the Rev. 
John A. Wilson, D. D., Professor of Church History in the Pittsburgh Theolo 
gical Seminary: 



174 SEVEN GENERAL COtJNClLS 

I. SEVEN GENERAL COUNCILS 

I am asked to present a concise history of the Councils which the Church 
of Rome recognizes as canonical. They are so numerous that one can do little 
more than catalogue them in an article of reasonable length. 

These Councils are called ''Ecumenical" or "General;" but it may well 
be questioned whether there ever has been a General Council. The nearest 
approach to such a gathering perhaps was the great "World Missionary Con- 
ference" in Edinburgh in 1910. 

The First Seven Councils are admitted to be ecumenical by both the 
Greek and Roman Catholics. These were all called by Emperors, who also 
presided over them either in person or by representatives; but the Papal 
Church now holds that none but the pope can call and conduct a General 
Council. 

It was long a matter of dispute whether infallibility lay in the Council 
or in the Pope. Many councils decided the question in their own favor, 
hence the Pope disliked Councils and called them with reluctance. In 1869, 
Pius IX., by the aid of the Jesuits, got a Council together that put the capstone 
on the Papal structure, by pronouncing the Pope infallible. But if a council 
is not infallible, with what certainity did it know that a Pope w^as? 

But to come to the Councils: 

1. The First Council of Nice. The First Council was called by Con- 
stantine the Great in 325 A. D., soon after he announced his acceptance of 
(Jhristianity. There arose in Egypt a fierce dispute respecting the nature of 
Christ. Was the Son equal with the Father? Arius, a sort of "walking 
delegate," loudly asserted that He w^as not. His followers, known as Arians, 
were the original Unitarians. 

The contention waxed so warm that the peace of the Empire was 
threatened. Constantine called a council of Bishops; for by this time they had 
invented the office of Bishop (there is no room for a "mere priest" in an 
Ecumenical Council.) 

The Council met in Nice. It consisted of three hundred and eighteen 
members; many of whom were interesting characters because of what they 
endured during the final, desperate attempt of paganism to exterminate Chris- 
tianity. The Council immortalized itself by adopting the Nicene creed — the 
first creed formulated by the Church which set forth unequivocally the oneness 
and equality of Christ with the Father. Arius and some of his adherents were 
banished. 

2. The First Council of Constantinople. Arianism was condemned, but 
not killed. Weeds are more persistent than wheat. The son and successor of 
Constantine adopted the heresy, and for a generation it spread over the empire 
like an epidemic. But one great man, Athanasius, stood immovably for the 
deity of the Lord Jesus. Others w^ere raised up to support him. At length 
an emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene doctrine, called 
another Council to meet in Constantinople, which in 330 A. D. Constantine had 
made the capital of the empire. This Council of a hundred and fifty bishops 



COUNCILS, CONTINUED 175 

met in 381 reaffirmed the Niceiie Creed, with some additions which referred 
to the Holy Spirit. 

3, The Council of Ephesus. Theological discussion now shifted to the 
personality of Christ. Had He two natures? If so, how were they connected? 
The dispute became more militant, if possible, than the former had been. 
Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and his followers, stood for two natures — 
through carrying the doctrine to the length of two personalities. Cyril and 
the Alexandrians held that in Christ was but one nature, hence they are 
called Monophj'sites. 

Theodosius IL, in 431, called a council to settle the controversy. It met 
in Ephesus — a hundred and sixty bishops. Nestorius was condemned, anathema- 
tized and exiled, yet his followers perpetuate the Nestorian doctrine to this 
day in Persia and other parts of the East. 

In 449 another council was called by the Alexandrian or heretical school. 
It also met in Ephesus; but so disgraceful was the conduct of the members that 
it has not been allowed to rank as an Ecumenical Council, but is known in 
history as the "Robber Synod." 

• 4. The Council of Chalcedon. Two years later, 451, the Emperor Marsian 
called the Fourth Council. It met in Chalcedon, across the Bosphorus from 
Constantinople. It was attended by five hundred and twenty bishops — being 
one of the largest and most important of the Councils. The opponents of 
orthodox}^ fought desperately, but were beaten at every point. The creed 
adopted affirmed "two natures in Christ, in one person, united without con- 
fusion, change, diversion or separation, the properties of each nature being 
preserved." 

The Monophysites realized that they were beaten, and separated from the 
Church, forming the Monophysitic sects, which, still exist in several Eastern 
countries. The Copts of Egypt are one of these. 

5. The Second Council of Constantinople. In the hope of reconciling the 
"insurgents," Justinian, in 593, called the fifth council, to which 164 bishops 
came. Some writings which, had been offensive to the Monophysites were con- 
demned, but the concessions failed to conciliate the opponents of the Chalcedon 
creed, while they provoked violent opposition in the West. 

6. The Third Council of Constantinople. Another, and the last phase of 
this protracted strife was the Monothelite controversy. Failing to bring the 
Church to concede the one nature theory, its advocates put forward a no less 
objectionable view^, namely that there was but one wall in the incarnate Christ. 
In 680, Constantine the Bearded called a Council to settle this question. This 
Council, composed of 280 bishops, decided in favor of the adherents of the 

doctrine of two wills Here, however, we come across an interesting fact. 

The Pope, Honorius I., had decided the other way — that Christ had only one 
will — hence the council anathematized him as a heretic. This judgment was 
approved by more than one of the succeding popes. We thus have the testimony 
of both council and pope that one pope at least was not infallible, even when 
speaking ex cathedra. 

7. The Second Council of Nice. The next council was held in the year 
787, in Nice, where the first had fee^n h^U, It was called by the profligate 



176 THIRTEEN PAPAL COUNCILS 

Empress Irene, and was largely attended — 350 bishops. The use of images in 
worship had long been a burning question in the East. Several Emperors 
strongly opposed their use, and approved of their destruction. But when 
Irene eame to power on the death of her husband, Leo IV., she was not a 
champion of spiritual Avorship. She called a council to consider the image 
question. Through her influence the council condemned the Iconoclasts — as 
the image-breakers were called — and sanctioned the worship of images. The 
Western or Roman part of the Church was favorable to image worship, and 
still is; while the Eastern or Greek portion was antagonistic to the practice, 
and do not use images in their worship row. 

This ends the Councils that are acknowledged as authoritative by both 
the Roman and the Greek Churches. All of these councils were held in the 
East, and were for the most part composed of Eastern men, and dealt with 
questions which agitated the East rather than the West. 

II. THE PAPAL COUNCILS 

There is not agreement even among Roman Catholic authorities respecting 
the number of Ecumenical Councils, some being ranked as merely a provincial 
council by one authority and as general by another. 

We have stated that councils were not popular with the Popes: this will be 
manifest from the length of time which separates many of them. 

8. The First Lateran Council. After the Seventh Council which was called 
by wicked Empress Irene in 787, and which authorized image worship, . there 
was not another general council until A. D. 1123. This is known as the First 
Lateran Council, so called because held in the Lateran palace in Rome. It 
was called by Pope Callistus II. to settle the dispute between him and Emperor 
Henry V. on the subject of investiture — that is, who should dispense ecclesias- 
tical patronage. It was attended by about three hundred bishops. The Pope 
won out. 

9. The Second Lateran Council. The next Council was called by Innocent 
II. in 1139, to condemn an anti-pope, Anaclitus II., and a troublesome repub- 
lican, Arnold of Brescia. It was largely attended — some say by a thousand 
ecclesiastics. It also met in the I^ateran. 

10. The Third Lateran Council. The Third Lateran Council was con- 
vened in 1179 by Alexander II. It dealt chiefly with the "errors and im- 
pieties" of the Waldenses and Albigenses. The popes w-ere strong for Church 
union, so "schims" had to be suppressed. There were 280 bishops in attend- 
ance. 

11. The Fourth Lateran Council. The fourth Lateran Council was called 
in 1215, by Innocent III. — the strongest Pope Rome has ever had. The Council 
was unusually large and important. The Pope presided, and had everything 
his own way. The dogma of transubstantiation was confirmed, auricular con- 
fession at least once a year was enforced, and the infamous inquisition was 
established. 

A war of extermination was decreed against the Albigenses who were not 
in f aVor of * ' church union, ' ' but wished to worship God in spirit and in. truth. 
Hundreds of towns and thousands of Christians in the south of France were 
destroyed, and an indelible stain was left on the memory of Innocent, who 



THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 1"^ 

prumisod the lands of the heretics and heaven hereafter to those who would 
exterminate them. 

12. The First Council of Lyons. The next Council was called by Inno- 
cent IV. in 1245. One hundred and forty bishops responded. It was convened 
for the purpose of furthering the Crusades, enforcing discipline, and dethroning 
Frederick II., Emperor of Germany, who had dared to assert his independence 
of the Pope. This Council decreed that cardinals should wear red hats. 

13. The Second Council of Lyons. The next General Council, like the 
last one. was held in Lyons, France. Gregory X. called it in 1274. Its chief 
subject was the reunion of the Greek and Roman Churches. Like all similar 
attempts it was. a failure. 

14. The next Council met in Vienne, Trance, convened by Clement V., 
in 1811. Philip the Fair coveted the rich possessions of the Knights of 
Templar and at his instigation the Pope convened a Council and dissolved 
the order. 

15. 1(3, 17. Then follow the Councils of Pisa, 1409; of Constance, 1414; 
and a Basle, 1431. These are known as the Reforming Councils. The Church 
was in a deplorable state. Three Popes were running abreast most of the 
time, anathematizing each other with all the language at their command. 
"St. Peter's bark" seemed on the point of going to pieces on the rocks. 
These Councils deposed several Popes, making as grave charges against them 
as could be brought against the vilest criminals. John XXIII. was so 
notoriously profligate that no Pope since then has taken the name of John. 
" Heretics •' were again troubling the Church and unity must be preserved, so 
the Council of Constance burned John Hus and Jerome of Prague. The 
Reforming Councils did not reform, and it was demonstrated that the Roman 
Church could not be reformed. It was too far gone. 

18. A Fifth Lateran Council was convened by Julius II. in 1512. It 
represented the canons of the Council of Pisa and made some vain ejfforts 
to reform. 

19. The Council of Trent. Next came the most celebrated of all the 
papal Councils — the Council of Trent. It met in 1545, and sat, off and on, for 
eighteen years. Its great purpose was' to condemn and crush the Reformation. 
Under the goad of the Reformation the Council did do some fumigating and a 
good deal of pruning, but the essential errors of the Church w^ere all retained. 
The decisions of this Council have been implicity received as the standard of 
faith, morals and discipline. 

20. The Vatican Council. There was no Council after that of Trent until 
1869 — three hundred and six years. In 1854 Pius IX., who called the Vatican 
Council in 1869, had, without the aid or consent of the Council, promulgated 
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. He was trying his wings for a 
higher flight. In 1869 all was ready, and he called a council for the purpose 
of declaring the Pope infallible. Though there was serious opposition, it 
was carried through, manj' bishops going home before the vote w-as taken. 
Though there were over eight hundred in the Council; they could whip only 
547 to vote for the dogma. Two dared to vote against it. The Council on 
the 18th of July took a recess until the 11th of November. In the meantime, 
on the 20th day of September, the troops of the King of Italy entered Rome 



178 TWENTY ROMAN HERESIES 

after an insignificant battle with the Pope's soldiers, and the temporal power 
of the Pope came to an end. 

The Council did not reconvene; and the course there never will be another 
called. ,What does an infallible Pope need of a Council? 

TWENTY ROMAN HERESIES 

Side by side with this review of the Twenty Councils recognized by the 
Roman Hierarchy, consider also this summary of Twenty Roman Heresies 
compiled by a writer to The Christian Conservator: 

1. The Gospel does not teach in a single place that we should pray for the 
dead. We challenge any reader to find a single support for this practice from 
any of the sixty-six books of the Bible. 

2. Nowhere in the Bible do we find any authority for making the sign 
of the cross. Both of these practices came into existence about three hundred 
years after Christ and His apostles. 

3. About 600 years after Christ and the apostles, Gregory I, established 
the worship in an unknown tongue or in Latin. The gospel teaches us only 
the use of a known language in the church, 

4. According to the gospel all our prayers should be addressed to God 
alone. Prayers never were offered to Mary and the saints by the apostles and 
the members of the early Christian church. The worship of Mary and the 
saints was commenced about 600 years after Christ and the apostles. 

5. The worship of the cross, images and relics was established about 788 
years after Christ. It is impossible to find a single trace of this practice in 
the gospel. 

6. The baptism of bells does not come from Christ and the apostles; 
this baptism was invented 965 years after the beginning of the Christian 
church, by Pope John XIV. 

7. It y^&s about 988 years after the apostles that Lent was imposed by 
the Roman Catholic church. Lent and the obligatory fast on Friday are 
commandments of men, not teachings of the gospel. God does not say in his 
Word: ''Do not eat," but, ''Do not sin." Not to sin, is the true fast that 
God demands of us. 

8. Roman Catholic priests introduced the fabrication of holy water about 
1000 years after the apostles. Thus this so-called holy water is merely a 
human novelty. 

9. Gregory VII. is the Pope who made the law against the marriage of 
the priests, 1079 years after Christ. The gospel teaches the marriage of the 
clergy. 

10. Beads were invented by Peter the Hermit, 1090 years after the apostles. 
This machine is used for counting prayers, but the gospel does not speak of it. 

11. The sacrifice of the Mass is a novelty and has been in existence only 
since the eleventh century. The gospel teaches us that the sacrifice of Christ 
was offered once for all. 

12. About 1190 years after Christ, the Roman Catholic church began the 
sale of indulgences. The Christian reli^on, as it is taught in the gospels^ qqv^- 
^emiis such a traffic, 



COUNCILS INTOLERANT 179 

13. The Roman Catholic church uses a wafer in the Lord's Super, instead 
of bread. This change was made about the time the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation was proclaimed an article of faith by Pope Innocent II. in 1215. In 
1220 Pope Honorius IIL invented the adoration of the wafer, and thus the 
Roman Catholic Church worships a god made by the hands of men. The 
adoration of such god is strongly condemned by the gospel. 

14. Auricular confession, or confession to the priests, was also made an 
article of faith by Pope Innocent II. during a session of the Council of 
Lateran, 1215 years after Christ. 

15. Since the year 1414, the Roman Catholic church refuses to give the 
cup, or wine, to the people in the Communion Service. This institution of 
Christ was changed by the Council of Constance. The gospel teaches that the 
Lord's Supper should be given with bread and wine. 

16. The doctrine of purgatory was proclaimed an article of faith 1438 
years after the apostles, by the Council of Florence. The gospel does not 
contain a single word concerning the Roman Catholic purgatory. 

17. Roman Catholic traditions were placed on the same level wdth the 
Holy Scriptures by the Council of Trent 1545 years after Christ. These 
traditions are simply teachings of men. 

18. The Apocryphal books, doubtless false, were placed in the Bible by 
the Council of Trent, 1546 years after the apostles. 

19. 1854 years after Christ, the Roman Catholic church invented the 
doctrine that Mary was born without sin. But the gospel tells us that all 
human beings have sinned. 

20. The infallibility of the Pope is a new doctrine which was made in 
the year 3 870. Before the year 1870 this dogma did not exist. No human 
being is infallible. All men make mistakes! 

Councils Intolerant — Councils called general teach principles, and im- 
pose a system of discipline, w^hich must lead to the emploj^ment of physical 
force, in order to maintain the position, and carry out the view^s of the Church 
of Rome. 

Before we proceed to the establishment of our assertion, we w^ould notice 
the views of some leading Romish divines on the subject of religious liberty. 
Dens says: 

"Are heretics justly punished with death? 

' ' A. Saint Thomas answers in the affirmative, because forgers of money, 
or others, disturbing the republic, are justly punished with death. Therefore, 
also heretics who are forgers of the faith, and, experience being the witness, 
greatly disturb the republic." (Dens, tom. ii. No. 56.) 

St. Thomas Aquinas, quoted by Dens, teaches the same. 

Popes have taught the same principles. 

"Honorius II. (1216) published a bull approving the laws of the emperor 
for the extermination of heretics." 

"Innocent IV. published a bull to the same effect. 

"Innocent IV. published (1243) a bull authorizing a crusade against 
heretics, granting the same indulgences to those who joined therein, as to the 
crusade in the Holy Land. 



180 ROME CLAIMS ALL BAPTIZED ONES 

."Alexander TV. (1254) published a bull for the appointment of officers to 
discharge the functions of the Inquisition against heretics. 

''Urban IV. (1262) published a bull of instruction to Inquisitors for the 
extermination of heretics. ' ' 

''Clement IV. (1265) with approval, refers to the bull of Innocent IV. for 
the extermination of heretics. 

"Nicholas III. (1278) published a bull, in which he ordains that heretics 
shall be punished with due severity. 

"John XXII. (1371) published a bull to the Inquisitors of France, in 
which he exhorts them to the fulfillment of their duties in extirpating heretics, 

"Boniface IX. (1391) published a bull approving the intolerance of 
Frederick. 

"Martin (1418) refers with approval to the Council of Constance, in which 
heretics were condemned to be burned as 'morbid sheep.' 

"Leo X. (1520) published a bull, in which he condemned the following- 
proposition of Luther, — 'Heretics comburi, est contra voluntatem Spiritus. ' — 
'It is contrary to the will of God to burn heretics.' 

"Clement VII. (1528) published a bull, in which he ordains those who 
err shall be altogether extirpated, — He ordains, moreover, that their goods, 
movable and immovable, may be seized by the faithful. 

Rome Claims the Baptized — The Council of Trent acknowledges the baptism 
of heretics: 

"If any shall say, that baptism which is given by heretics in the name 
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what 
the Church does, is not true baptism, — let him be accursed." 

And having thus acknowledged the baptism of heretics, it declares that 
the baptized, heretics amongst the rest, are not free from the precepts of the 
Church, but bound to observe them: — "If any one shall say that the baptized 
are free from all the precepts of the Holy Church, whether written or delivered 
by tradition so that they are not bound to observe them unless of their own 
will they desire to submit themselves thereto — let him be accursed. ' ' 

Thus every Protestant is bound, according to Romish doctrine, to observe 
the precepts of the Church of Rome. 

Further, the Council of Trent says: 

"If any one shall say, that when those baptized children shall have grown 
up, they are to be interrogated, whether they desire to ratify that, which their 
sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized; and when they 
answer that they are unwilling, they are to be left to their own choice, and 
not to be compelled to lead a Christian life, by any other punishment than 
exclusion from the Eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent, — let 
him be accursed. 

'*The Holy Synod, desiring that ecclesiastical discipline should not only 
be established among Christian people, but also that it be perpetually preserved 
safe, and protected from all impediments whatsoever, in addition to these 
things which it appoints coucerning ecclesiastical persons, decrees, that secular 
princes also be admonished of their duty, hoping, confidently, that they, as 
Catholics, whom God hath willed to be protectors of the holy faith, and of 
the Church, will not only concede that its own law will be restored to the 



CIVIL RULEKS TO ENFORCE RITES • 1ST 

Church, hut :ilso that they briii<r l>;i('k :ill th(Mr own sul).io('ts to <luo rovrroiicc 
towards the clergy, the parish priests, and the liigher orders, nor permit that 
official persons or superior magistrates, indueiuMMl ])y cupidity, or by any in- 
consideration, should violate the immunity of the Church, and ecclesiastical 
persons, appointed by the ordinance of God, and canonical sanction, but that 
they together with the princes themselves, render due observance to the sacred 
constitutions of the supreme Pontiff and Councils." 

Thus the man is accursed, who says that the baptized is not to be com- 
pelled to receive conlirmation. 

Civil Rulers to Enforce the Rites of the Church — In accordance with these 
views, the Council of Trent teaches, that persons are to be compelled to sub- 
mit to the discipline of the Church: — "It decrees, therefore, and enacts, that 
the sacred canons and all General Councils, also all other apostolic sanctions 
put forth in favor of ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical liberty, and against 
those who infringe it; all of which canons, etc., also this Synod confirms by 
the present decree, ought to be duly observed bj' all; and therefore it ad- 
monishes the emperors, kings, republics, princes, and all and singular, of 
Avhatever state and dignity they be, that by how much the more abundantly 
they are endued with temporal goods, and power over others, by so much 
the more sacredly ought they to venerate the precepts of the ecclesiastical law, 
as commanded of God, and protected by His patronage nor should they suffer 
them to be transgressed by any barons, rulers, governors, or other temporal 
lords or magistrates, and especially by their own servants, but that they 
severely" punish those who impede .the liberty, immunity, and jurisdiction of 
the said ecclesiastical law. 

* * * "And since it is now at length necessary to put an end to this 
Racred Council, it now remains that it admonish in the Lord, which it does, all 
princes, to afford their utmost diligence that they do not permit those things 
which have been decided by it, to be depraved or violated by heretics, but that 
by them, and all other persons, they be devoutly received and faithfully ob- 
served. ' ' 

This is plain enough. Princes are to see that those things decreed by 
the Council are to be devoutly received, aiid faithfully observed even by 
heretics! 

The following are some of the decrees of the Fourth Council of Lateran, 
A. D. 1215, esteemed by Rome as a Ge;iieral Council. 

We now refer to the Third Canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran, A. 
D. 1215, esteemed a General Council. The Canon is as follows: "We excom- 
municate and anathematise every heresy which exalteth itself against this 
holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith, which we have set forth above," that is, 
in the first Canon, "condemning all heretics, by w^hatsoever name they may 
be reckoned, who have indeed divers faces, but their hearts are bound to- 
gether, for they make agreement in the same folly. Let such persons, when 
condemned, be left to the secular powers, who maj'' be present, or to their 
officers, to be punished in a fitting manner: those who are of the clergy be- 
ing first degraded from their office so that the goods of such condemned per; 
sons, being laymen, shall be confiscated; but in the ease of clerks, be ap- 



182 Directions to civil rulers 

plied to the cliurches from which they receive their stipends. 

''But let those who aYe only marked with suspicion, be smitten Avith 
the sword of anathema, and shunned by all men, until tliey make proper satis- 
faction; unless, according to the grounds of suspicion, and the quality of 
the persons, they shall have demonstrated their innocence, by a proportionate 
purgation; so that if any shall remain in excommunication for a twelvemonth, 
thenceforth they shall be condemned as heretics. And let the secular pow- 
ers, whatsoever oftices they may hold, be induced and admonished, and, if 
need be, compelled by eccleciastical censure, that as they desire to be ac- 
counted faithful, they should, for the defense of the faith, publicly set forth 
an oath, that, to the utmost of their power, they will strive to exterminate 
from the lands under their jurisdiction, all heretics who shall be denounced 
by the Church, so that, whensoever and howsoever any person is advanced, 
either to temporal or spiritual powers, he be bound to confirm this decree 
with an oath. 

''But, if any temporal lord, being required and admonished by the Church, 
shall neglect to cleanse his country from this heretical filth, let him be bound, 
with the chains of excommunication, by the metropolitan and other co-provi- 
sional bishops. And if he shall scorn to make satisfaction within a year, 
let this be signified to the Supreme Pontilf, that henceforth he may declare 
his vassals to be absolved from their fidelity to him, and may expose his 
land to be occupied by the Catholics, who, having exterminated the heretics, 
may, without contradition possess it, and preserve it in purity of faith; sav- 
ing the right of the chief lord, so long as he himself presents no difficulty, 
and offers no hindrance in this matter, the same law nevertheless, being ob- 
served concerning those who have not lords-in-chief. But let the Catholics 
who, having taken the sign of the cross, have girded themselves for the 
extermination of the heretics, enjoy the same indulgences, and be armed 
with the same privileges, as is concerned to those who go to the assistance 
of Ihe Holy Land. 

"But w^e desire, also, to subject to excommunication the believers, the 
receivers, the defenders, the abettors of the heretics, firmly determining that 
if any such person, after he has been marked with excommunication, shall 
refuse to make satisfaction within a twelvemonth, he be henceforth of right 
in very deed infamous, and be not admitted to public offices or councils, nor 
to elect for anything of the sort, nor to give evidence. Let him also be 
intestable, so as neither to have power to bequeath, nor to succeed to any 
inheritance. Moreover, let no man be obliged to answer him in any mat- 
ter, but let him be compelled to answer others. If haply he be a judge, 
let his sentence have no force, nor let any causes be brought for his hear- 
ing. If he be an advocate, let not his pleadings be admitted. If a notary, 
let the instruments drawn up by him be invalid, and be condemned with their 
condemned author. And we charge that the same be achieved in similar 
cases. But if he be a clerk, let him be disposed from every office and bene- 
fice, that where there is the greatest fault, the greatest vengeance may bo 
exercised. But if any shall fail to shun such persons after they have been 
pointed out by the Church, let them be compelled, by sentence of excom- 
munication, to make befitting satisfaction. Let the clergy by no means ad- 



PENALTIES PRESCRIBED 183 

minister the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons, nor presume 
to commit them to Christian burial, nor receive their alms or oblations. If 
they do, let them be deprived of their otfice, to which they must not be re- 
stored without the special indulgence of the Apostolic See." 

QUESTIONS FOR CLxVSS CONSIDERATION 

What does Article XI. declare with reference to the Councils? 
Why is it impossible to accept all their deliverances? 
Of what decree is the Creed of Pius IV. a contradiction? 
How many Councils are reckoned by most Roman authorities? 
What is the list as given in the Catholic Encyclopedia? 
What is the list as given by Dr. John A. Wilson? 
How many of these were in any sense "Ecumenical"? 
How many of them were papal? 

How^ long a time intervened between the seventh and eighth Councils? 
For what purpose was the Council of Trent called? 
How long did it last? 
What were some of its results? 
When was the last Council held? Where? 
What was its principal act? 
Will another Council likely be held soon? 
Give evidences of the intolerance of many Councils. 
What are some evidences of their contradictory character? 
Name twenty Roman heresies. Do these agree with the deliverances of 
the Nicene Council? 

What power does Rome claim over the baptized of other Churches? 
Has she ever rescinded her bulls of extermination? 
What does she demand of civil rulers? 



184 THE ROMISH CREED NOT TRUE 



LESSON XXVI. 



THE ROMISH CREKD NOT TRUE, NOT CATHOLIC, AND NOT 
NECESSARY TO SALVATION 

^'I, N. N., do at this present freely profess and sincerely hold this true 
Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved r and I promise most con- 
stantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, with God's as- 
sistance to the end of my life." — Article XII. of the Creed of Pope Pius 
IV. 

If the foregoing articles of the Tridentine Creed are in harmony with 
the teachings of our Lord Jesus, then it must follow that a great multi- 
tude of His professed followers are today in the darkness of blindness and 
of condemnation, for they are living without Christ, without God, and with- 
out hope. It has been our efforts in recent studies to compare the articles 
of this Creed one by one with the teachings of our Lord and His apostles, 
examining them in the light of the Holy Scriptures to see whether these 
things are so. We have grown more and more convinced, that there are in 
this Romish Creed many things that are wholly contrary to the teachings 
of the Word of God. To endeavor to point out all of these discrepancies 
would be to restate much that has been already presented. We can only 
summarize a few of the leading Roman dogmas which we believe to be untrue. 

1. The Rule of Faith which Rome lays down for her followers is not 
that which our Lord Jesus Christ gave to His disciples to communicate to 
the world. He said concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, ' * Search the 

Scriptures ;they testify of Me" (John 5:7-9). He said again, ''They 

have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them; if they hear not Moses 
and the prophets neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the 
dead" (Luke 16:29-31). In revealing Himself to His disciples after the 
resurrection. He expounded to them the scriptures as found in the law of 
Moses, the prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). In His last great com- 
mission. He commanded His disciples not only to make disciples and to 
baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: 
but also, "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded" 
(Matt. 28:20). Our Lord emphatically denounced the Scribes and Pharisees 
because through their traditions they made void the word of the living God. 
Yet Rome in the face of *all this, declares that tradition is to be accepted 
as of equal authority with the written word: This she does, notwithstand- 
ing the impossibility of being able to present to the people tradition as a 
workable rule of life. Only within recent times did the Abbe Migne at- 
tempt to collect Catholic traditions. What is the size of this convenient 
compilation? The Latin Fathers form two hundred . and twenty-two thick 
volumes, the Greek, one hundred and sixty-seven, and this is only Fathers; 
if you want the proceedings of Councils, the decrees of Popes, etc., you must 
search for them elsewhere. Besides all this, after having named scripture 



ANOTHER GOSPEL— NOT A GOSPEL 185 

and tradition r.s her rule of faith, tln^ Chuivh of Konic virtually sots asid.' 
both parts of this rule hy hor position that these must be interpreted by 
the Church and then ascribing to the Pope the power of an infallible guide, 
whose will and word must be accepted as final. In this setting aside the rule 
of faith which God has given us, we declare that the Creed of the Roman 
Church, is not true. 

2. Equally unscriptural and false do we believe her teachings concerning 
the Sacraments. That the substance of Rome's teachings is '''Salvation by 
Ceremony ' ' is made manifest both by her multiplication of the number of 
Sacraments beyond those which have been divinely appointed, and also by 
her perversion of those which our Lord certainly gave to His Church. Start- 
ing with the principle that only through sacraments can divine grace bo 
conferred. Rome takes it upon herself to supply what was lacking in God's 
gracious provision for His church and people. Only through a sacrament can 
the soul be regenerated, or restored after a lapse, or made partaker of the 
divine life or prepared for entrance into the world to come; therefore the 
invention of penance and confirmation, and extreme unction; hence also her 
ascj'ibing to the divinely appointed sacraments, the powers which our Lord 
never conferred upon them. Her perversion of the Lord's Supper from a 
commemorative into a sacrificial ordinance, does a great dishonor to the name 
and the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus, who, by one offering forever perfected 
them that are sanctified. 

3. Rome also detracts from the honor of God and the welfare of hu- 
man souls, by introducing human mediators as the necessary way of ap- 
proach to Christ and the Father. The high priest, under the Mosaic dis- 
pensation, went into the most Holy place once a year, with hone of the other 
priests or the people accompanying him; foreshadowing the great truths 
that no one, in coming Gospel times, should dare to intrude himself into 
the office of Mediator between God and man, which is so perfectly filled by 
the atonement and intercessions of our Lord Jesus Himself. He declares, 
"No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." His servant Paul teaches 
that there is but one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. 
The apostle John writes, "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," and the writer of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, declares, "Wherefore He is able to save unto the uttermost them 
that come unto God through Him, seeing that He ever liveth to make in- 
tercession for them" (Heb. 7:25). Yet the Creed which w^e have been con- 
sidering declares "that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be 
honored and invocated. " 

4. We protest also against the teachings of this Romish Creed because 
it makes void the law of God by sanctioning that which He has forbidden 
and by setting aside important parts of that law'. We have seen how that 
in many Roman catechisms, the second commandment has no place. Even 
Avhere it is recognized, it is not permitted to occupy its rightful place as 
a distinct command but is given as an appendix to the first one. If the 
word of God forbids anything, this commandment surely places under the 
ban of God's displeasure the worshipping of Him by images or by any other 



186 ROME'S CREED NOT CATHOLIC 

w^y not appointed in His word. Yet the creed of Pope Pius IV. declares 
in its eighth article: "I most firmly assert that the images of Christ of the 
Mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of other saints may be had and re- 
tained; and that due honor and veneration are to be given to them." The 
curse of God which rested upon Jeroboam who made Israel to sin by set- 
ting up images to be adored by the people, rests upon those who in mod- 
ern times have taught millions of people to adore things which God's law 
prohibits and condemns. 

5. We believe the Creed which we have been considering to be untrue 
to the word of God, because it sets forth false teachings with reference to 
the future state of God's redeemed people. It denies the fulness and free- 
ness of the forgiveness of sin that is offered to us in Jesus Christ. It teaches 
that after His forgiveness there must follow temporal punishments which 
may reach out into the unseen world and continue for untold ages. Rome's 
doctrines of a purgatory we believe to be without a shadow of a founda- 
tion upon the word of God and prevents multitudes from exercising the 
blessed hope of a glorious inheritance. It leads multitudes also to seek pre- 
paration for the life to come without resort to the one way of salvation 
which God has revealed in His holy word. 

Rome declares that acceptance of this Creed is necessary to salvation. 
What then must become of the millions who lived and died before this Creed 
was formulated and enacted in the year of our Lord, 1564? Our Lord Him- 
self said to Nicodemus, "God so loved the world that he gave His only 
Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish, but have 
everlasting life." The apostle Peter boldly declared, '^Neither is there 
salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among 
men whereby we must be saved." When the Philippian jailer cried out 
in his distress, ''What must I do to be saved?" Paul's answer was, "Believe 
en the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house. ' ' Yet 
the Creed of Pope Pius IV. says concerning its declarations, "Without which 
no one can be saved." Were Jesus Christ and His servants, Peter and 
Paul, mistaken when they taught that salvation is freely and fully offered 
to all who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, or 
were they trying to dupe and mislead mankind when they proclaimed such 
a gospel? This claim that there can be no salvation without an acceptance 
of this Creed is another of Rome 's unwarranted, unblushing, arrogant as- 
sumptions by which she seeks to hold the hearts and minds of mankind un- 
der subservient dominion. 

And we believe that this Creed is as uncatholic as it is untrue and 
unnecessary to salvation. It never has been taught or believed by the Church 
Universal. It never was taught by our Lord Jesus and His apostle. It is 
not held and believed by the great, body of believers at the prescTit time, 
rather the great teaching of the word of God and of millions of His fol- 
lowers is that salvation is God's free and gracious gift, freely and fully 
offered' to all who truly accept His Son, Jesus Christ, and rest upon Him 
alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel. 

The Romish system is contrary to the great central truth, "The gift of 
God is eternal life through Jesus Christ His Son. ' ' 



CHRIST S THREEFOLD OFFICE 187 

Christ in His Threefold Offices 
If we are to listen to the claims of Rome's advocates and apologists, we 
might conclude that she still zealously maintains the divinity and supreme 
authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet careful study of her teachings and 
practices as set forth in her authorized creeds and deliverances warrants 
the conclusion that there is not one divine prerogative which belongs to our 
Lord Jesus Christ, whether as the Eternal Son of God or as the Anointed 
Redeemer of mankind, of which He has not "been robhed by Rome's claims 
and usurpations. This great hierarchy claims to honor Christ above all others, 
forgetting that He has said, "I am Jehovah, that is My name; and My glory 
will I not give to another, neither My praise unto graven images ' ' (Isa. 
42:8). Rome claims to give the preeminenece to Jesus Christ in all things, 
but we remember that there were those to whom He said, "Why call yo 
Me Lord, and do not the things which I command you?'' 

1. The Prophetic Office. We are taught that our Lord as our Redeemer 
executes the offices of Prophet, Priest and King, both in His estate of humil- 
iation and exaltation. Unless we accept Jesus Christ in each and all of these 
offices, we do not truly take Him as our Saviour. We need His ministry as 
our prophet or teacher to remove our ignorance, as our priest to atone for our 
guilt and to intercede for us at God's right hand, and as our King to rule 
in us and over us, to restrain and conquer all His and our enemies. "If 
Christ is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all." Yet enough has already 
been presented concerning the teachings and practices of Rome to demonstrate 
that she robs our Lord Jesus Christ of His rightful prerogatives in each of 
these essential relationships. The Church of Rome usurps Christ's lawful 
prerogative as our Prophet when she assumes to place the traditions of men 
on a par with the inspired revelation of God and when she claims to hold 
the sole right to interpret the Holy Scriptures. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave 
to His disciples the promise of the Holy Spirit, who should guide them into 
all truth. Rome teaches that instead of looking to the Divine Spirit of illumi- 
nation for a proper understanding of the Holy Scriptures, no one is warranted 
to give any interpretation to any part of the inspired word save that upon 
which the Romish hierarchy has set its seal of approval. 

2. The Priestly Office. Rome also robs our Lord Jesus of His rightful 
prerogative as the divinely anointed and exalted High Priest of our profes- 
sion. We search in vain in the Acts of the Apostles for any recognition 
of an order of ministers or officials in the Christian Church whose business 
it should be to offer propitiatory sacrifices. The term priest is applied only 
to our Lord Jesus Christ when speaking of the rites and sacrifices under 
the Christian dispensation, except in 1 Peter 2:5 and Rev. 1:6, in which 
verses all who believe in the Lord Jesus are represented as enjoying priestly 
privileges. Christ by one offering has forever perfected them that are sancti- 
lied. There is no need to add any sacrificial act or merit to that which He 
offered for our redemption, concerning which He cried, "It is finished." 
Yet Rome has her priests by the hundred thousands, upon whose offerings 
and intercessions the suppliant must rely for acceptance with God. Romanists 
are taught to adore and invoke the Virgin Mother and other saints, notwitli- 



188 CHRIST DISHONORED 

standing tlie teacliings of the inspired Word, ''There is but one mediator 
between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5), and the Saviour's 
own words, *'No man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). 
Rome teaches that "in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper and 
propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." She thus teaches in 
contradiction to all of these Scriptures w^hich set forth the sufficiency and 
completeness of the atonement made by the Lord Jesus Christ, the necessity 
of continual offering of propitiatory sacrifices by those upon whom she un- 
warrantably bestow^s priestly authority. ''Thou shalt worship the Lord thy 
God, and Him only shalt thou serve. ' ' 

3. The Kingly Office. And just as certainly has she usurped the rightful 
prerogatives of the Lord Jesus Christ as the divinely anointed King of saints 
and King of nations. 

Every member of the great Roman hierarchy is compelled to subscribe 
to this article of the Creed: "I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, Apostolic 
Roman Church, for the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise 
and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome, successor to Saint Peter, 
prince of apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ." The Pope claims, and so 
far as possible exercises, supreme authority over the consciences and lives 
of all who profess allegiance to his dominion. The history of the popes 
shows also that it is only a limitation of power that prevents them from 
exercising a similar tyranny over all mankind, whether they willingly ac- 
knowledge papal supremacy or not. Since 1870 the Popes have posed as 
prisoners in the Vatican, withholding the papal benediction even from the 
people of Rome, until they shall restore to them the temporal authority which 
they lost immediately after the enactment of the decree of infallibility. It 
must be plainly manifest even to the casual observer, that by stealth, by 
unceasing and insidious efforts, Rome is seeking to gain dominion in all 
lands and nations, and it is tnly lack of opportunity and power that prevents 
her from grinding in the dust all who will not submit to the claims of the 
great usurper. 

How can any one apologize for the Romish :,ystem which, w^hile it pro- 
fesses to place the crown of divinity upon our Lord Jesus Christ, yet robs 
Him of every vestige of authority and every rightful prerogative which 
God has bestowed upon Him as the divinely appointed and anointed Redeemer 
of mankind? 

The Infallibility of the Pope 

The following is the decree of infallibility that was adopted by the Va- 
tican Council, July 18th, 1870: 

"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the 
Roman Pontilf, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in the discharge 
of his office of pastor and teacher of all Curistians, by virtue of his su- 
preme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, 
to be held by the Universal Church — is, by the Divine assistance promised 
to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine 
Redeemer willed that the Church should be endowed in defining doctrine re- 
i^arding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE 189 

Pontiffs are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irre- 
f ormable. " 

Our chief objection to this presumptuous decree is the fact that it is 
wholly unwarranted by the Scriptures. Even were it proven that the rock 
on which Christ would found His Church (Matt. 16:18) was Simon Peter, 
what evidence have we that authority vested in him was ever transferred 
by divine authority to the Bishop of Rome? Besides, it is a well known 
fact that a large number of the early fathers interpret the words of Jesus. 
'*0n this rock I will build my Church," as referring either to our Lord 
Himself or to the great truth which Peter had just confessed. In the second 
article of the Creed which we have been studying every Romanist declares, 
"I will not take and interpret any part of the Scriptures except by the un- 
animous consent of the fathers." But certainly there is no unanimous 
consent among the fathers as to the meaning of this disputed text. Over 
against some seventeen who record their belief that Peter was the rock 
on which Christ was to build His church, there are no less than seventy 
or more of the fathers who hold that it referred either to Christ or the 
truth to which Peter had just confessed. Where is the unanimous teach- 
ing of the fathers necessary to support the decree of infallibility? In fur- 
ther opposition to this infamous dogma we quote from Modern Romanism 
Examined, by Rev. H. W. Deardon: 

"The decree has been rejected by all non-Roman Churches. It has also 
been a source of regret and distress to many Romanists. Before its pro- 
mulgation Cardinal Newman wrote to the Roman Catholic Bishop Ullathornc, 
"Why should an aggressive insolent faction be allowed to make the heart 
of the just sad whom the Lord hath not made sojTOwful? Why cannot we 
be let alone when we pursue peace and not evil? I assure you, my 
lord, some of the truest minds are driven one way and another, and do not 
know where to rest their feet — one day determining to give up theology as 
a bad job, and recklessly to believe henceforth that the Pope impeccable; 
at another, tempted to believe all the worst which a book like 'Janus' says. 
Then again, think of the store of pontifical scandals in the history of eigh- 
teen centuries which have partly been poured forth and partly are still to 
come." 

"Some of the ablest Roman theologians opposed it, but the dogma had 
been determined upon by the Curia and the Pope, 'and not from the eon 
sent of the Church,' as the decree only too truly expresses it, for it was 
carried against the protest and reasonings of the most learned. The great 
mass of Romanists have treated it with, indifference, whilst numbers of those 
who bowed to the decision did so on the ground that the decree would prove 
to be impotent." Not a few console themselves with the excuse made by 
Newman to his friend W. Probyn-Nevins, Oxford, "The formal conditions 
of the occasions when his (the Pope's) teaching is infallible are not deter- 
mined," which is equivalent to saying that no one can ever be sure when 
the Pope does speak infallibly. 

The number of unproved and unprovable assertions in the decree should 
be noticed — that the dogma "has been divinely revealed," which it has 
not; that the Roman Pontiff is "pastor and teacher of all Christians," which 



390 MISTAKES OF POPES 

is repudiated by more than talf Christendom; that he has apostolic author- 
ity over the ''universal Church,'' which is an arrogant assumption, the 
Pope being only the chief bishop of the Roman communion; that the Popes 
can define all doctrines ' ' of themselves, and not from the consent of the 
Church," which is opposed to the teaching of Rome for centuries; and that 
such definitions of doctrines once made are ' 'irreformable, " i. e., final and 
irreversible, a dangerous assertion, which deprives Rome of the power ot 
rectifying her mistakes. 

The boastful and presumptuous language in which the dogma is clothed 
is trifling compared to the falsehood of the dogma itself. The reasons against 
the dogma are overwhelming. 

Novelty of the Doctrine. The fact that the infallibility of the Pope was 
not held as a dogma even by the Roman Church for 1800 years is alone suf- 
ficient to condemn it. It was rejected by the Councils of Constance and 
Basle. It is not mentioned in the decrees of the Council of Trent, nor in 
the Creed of Pope Pius IV., which added so many doctrines to the Roman 
Church. A general assembly of the bishops and clergy of France was held 
in 1682, at which the celebrated Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux (1681-1704) 
drew up a declaration on the limits of the authority of the Pope. In this 
declaration it was affirmed that the ''Pope's judgment is not irreversible 
or irreformable until confirmed by the consent of the Church." Bossuet 
further declared ' ' the whole question of infallibility is put amongst matters 
that are speculative and vain. ' ' These are sufficient to show the views of 
the French Romanists in the seventeenth century. The same is expressed 
in the "Protestation of English Romanists" in 1788, when seeking relief 
from some oppressive Acts of Parliament from Mr. Pitt. The signatories 
to the Protestation state plainly, "We acknowledge no infallibility in the 
Pope." The Irish bishops made a similar declaration when seeking for 
toleration in the middle of last century, declaring that "the doctrine of the 
Pope 's personal infallibility was no part of the Christian faith. ' ' Keenan 's 
Catechism published with the approval of Irish and Scotch bishops had this 
question, "Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?" 
To which the answer was given, "That is a Protestant invention; it is no 
article of the Catholic faith, ' ' etc. The Catechism is still circulated, but 
since 1870 the question and answer are judiciously left out! Many other 
proofs could be given, but these suffice to show that this recent momentous 
article of faith is condemned by its very novelty. 

Infallibility refuted by the heresies and mistakes of Popes. At the time 
of the Arian heresy, that heresy which denied the divinit}^ of our Lord, 
Lberius was Pope, or bishop of Rome. At first he courageously opposed the 
heresy, but on another bishop being appointed to take his see, he wrote of- 
ficial letters to the Arian bishops of the East (intended for publication by 
them)., in which he gave to Arianism all the weight of his official position, 
thus making himself guilty of their grievous error. Evidently he sacrificed 
his orthodoxy to his ambition, and forfeited all claim to infallibility. Pope 
Vigilius lies under similar suspicion, but the case of Pope Honorius is un- 
questionable. This Pope was condemned as a Monothelite heretic by the 
Sixth General Council of Constantinople amid cries of "Anathema to the heretic 



LET THERE BE EIGHT 15)1 

Honorius! " Evidently the dogma of the Pope's infallibility was not then 
received. The anathema against Honorius was repeated by successive Popes 
for hundreds of years, and stood in the Roman Breviary until the latter part 
of the sixteenth century. 

Mistakes of Popes also disprove it. These are too numerous to dw^ell 
upon. Nicholas I. assured the Bulgarians that baptism only in the name of 
Christ was valid. Nicholas II, compelled Berengarius to acknowledge the 
Capernaite heresy that Christ's body is sensibly (sensualiter) touched by 
the hands and broken by the teeth in the Eucharist. Pope Gelasius insisted 
upon communion in both kinds; recent Popes forbid the wine to the laity. 
Eugenius in his instruction to the Armenians, which is added to the Acts 
of the Council of Florence (A, D. 1430), insists upon the delivery of the 
sacramental vessels to the candidate for holy orders as essential to their 
ordination. But such a condition had not been required before. The decree 
of the infallibility (A. D. 1870) requires that the Pope should speak to the 
Universal Church when he utters a decree that is to be infallible. But such 
a condition was unknown for a thousand years, so that Rome condemns all 
previous utterances of Popes as fallible, or at least those before the Bull 
of "Unam Sanctam" of Pope Boniface VIIL, in 1303, w^hich is the first 
addressed to the whole Church. The complications and contradictions are 
endless! 

Let There Be Light 
It is said that Alexander the Great once visited Diogenes, the eccentric 
])hilosopher of his day, and as the great general stood in the door of sage 's 
humble dwelling he said to him, "Can I do anything for you today?" "You 
can stand out of my sunlight, if you please." Even an emperor's presence 
was undesirable w^hen it obscured the sunlight of heaven. As our compassions 
go out to the millions w^ho are 'held under the benighting influence of Rome's 
false teachings, our wish and prayer for them is that those w^ho hold them 
in subjection w^ould stand out of their sunlight and allows the brightness of 
God's love to shine freely into their souls. We realize that Rome's leaders 
look also with pity, if not contempt, upon those w-ho keep themselves outside 
the pale of w'hat they call the only Church of Jesus Christ, beyond w^hich they 
teach that salvation is impossible. I hold in my hand a book entitled, "Pur- 
gatory, its Pains and Consolations", by the Very Rev. Jean Kinane. In tHis 
book I read, 

"We must bear in mind that the Church has her treasures. She has the 
infinite merit of our Blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ; and the superabundant 
merit of the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints. The Church dispenses these 
treasures by holy indulgences. Indulgences remit a part, sometimes a whole 
of the temporal punishment due to sins." And again, "For the dying Pro- 
testant, there is no absolution, no extreme unction, no indulgence. A cold 
chapter from the Protestant Bible, the only consolation! O, the withering 
curse of heresy! May the love and mercy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ 
convert all heretics!" 

Do you, reader, feel yourself in need of such commiseration? "A cold 
chapter from the Protestant Bible the only consolation!'' That chapter may 
be the fourteenth of John's gospel. "Let not your heart be troubled; believe 



I 



19fi CAN WE SING THE SONG? 

in God, believe in Me. In My Father's house are many mansions. I go to 

prepare a place for you. And if T go and prepare a place for j'ou, I will come 

again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also 

I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cOmeth unto the Father but by 
Me." "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you." "1 wall pray the 
Father and He will send you another Comforter, that He may abide with you 
forever." "A cold chapter from the ProteGtant Bible the only consolation!" 

Tell me, humble, trusting child of God, would you exchange the hope and 
peace with w^hich this chapter from the Protestant Bible fills your heart and 
soul for all the priestly absolution, the sprinkling with holy water, the anoint- 
ing withL so called Holy oil in the last moment of your earthly existence and 
all the other forms and ceremonies on which Eome teaches her devotees to 
depend? Every chapter in the Protestant Bible brings to us the gracious 
nearness of our Lord and Saviour Who says, "Fear thou not, for I am with 
thee." 

It is just because the multiplication of forms, the adding of mediators 
to the one whom God has provided, the attempt to increase the merits of the 
perfect atonement of our Lord, etc., become obstructions between the inquiring- 
soul and the Son of God's love, that we plead with all who may read these 
lines to look unto Him and to trust in Him alone for the salvation w^hich He 
so freely offers. Go through the catacombs which stretch for miles away from 
the city of Kome, in w'hose narrow niches millions of Christ's redeemed ones 
found their cemetery — their sleeping place, in early centuries. Study the in- 
scriptions and emblems w^hich mark their last resting places. Go into the 
great Hall of Tablets in the Vatican Palace and study the ten thousand in- 
scriptions brought there from the catacombs. You will not find one which 
indicates that the souls of those early Christians depended upon human or 
angelic mediators for introduction into the presence of Jesus Christ. You 
will not find a prayer for the dead, nor a word about masses or purgatory. 
But you will find everywhere a dominant trust in the Lord Christ as the only 
and all-sulTicient Saviour. You will find abundant evidences that the souls 
which found peace in Him found it through the cleansing application of His 
precious blood by His word and His Spirit. And He Who brought joy and 
peace into the soul of those early Christians is able to fill your soul with the 
same joy and peace as you look up to Him and depend upon Him alone. 

Among the very many songs of praise recorded in Holy Writ, 
there is not a strain that gives glory to any other save to our God and Ee- 
deemer. May we rest in Him and in Him alone that we also may participate 
in the song of redemption: 

"Unto Him that loveth us and washed us from our sins by His blood, and 
hath made us kings and priests unto His God and Father, to Him be the glory 
and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. ' ' 

"Worthy art Thou to take the Book and to open the seals thereof; for 
Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with Thy blood men of every 
tribe and tongue and people and nation, and madest them to be unto our God 
a kingdom of priests." 





1 




i 


r^]l]^^ 


-tU. 



